The Economist: Is America Turning Left?

The Economist asks "Is America Turning left?" The answer given is "Probably—but not in the way many foreigners (and some Americans) hope":

Is America turning left?, The Economist: For George Bush, the presidency is becoming a tragic tale of unintended consequences. In foreign policy, the man who sought to transform Iraq, the Middle East and America's reputation has indeed had revolutionary effects, though not the ones he was aiming for. Now something similar seems to be happening in domestic politics. The most conservative president in recent history ... may well end up driving the Western world's most impressive political machine off a cliff.

That machine has put Republicans in the White House in seven of the past ten contests. ... Watergate helped Jimmy Carter in 1976, just as the end of the cold war and Ross Perot's disruptive third-party campaign helped Bill Clinton in 1992. Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals, American conservatives have controlled the agenda even when they have lost: Mr Clinton is best remembered for balancing the budget and passing welfare reform, both conservative achievements. In a country where one in three people see themselves as conservatives (against one in five as liberals) ..., it is easy to see why Mr Bush and his strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of banishing Democrats from power for a generation.

Now they would settle for a lot less. Having recaptured Congress last year, the Democrats are on course to retake the presidency in 2008. Only one Republican, Rudy Giuliani, looks competitive..., and his campaign is less slick than those of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Voters now favour generic Democratic candidates over Republican ones by wide margins. Democrats are more trusted even on traditional conservative issues... (see article).

For this, he is not guilty

The easy scapegoat is Mr Bush himself. During his presidency, the words Katrina, Rumsfeld, Abramoff, Guantánamo and Libby have become shorthand for incompetence, cronyism or extremism. Indeed, the failings of Mr Bush's coterie are oddly reassuring for some conservatives: once he has gone, they can regroup, as they did after his father was ousted in 1992.

Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved, from humongous tax cuts to conservative judges. Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. Some of the arrogance in foreign policy stems from the armchair warriors of neoconservatism; the ill-fated attempt to “save” the life of the severely brain-damaged Terri Schiavo was driven by the Christian right. Even Mr Bush's apparently oxymoronic trust in “big-government conservatism” is shared in practice by most Republicans in Congress.

From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream ... the Democrats cast themselves into the political wilderness. Now the American people seem to be reacting to conservative over-reach by turning left. More want universal health insurance; more distrust force as a way to bring about peace; more like greenery; ever more dislike intolerance on social issues.

So some sort of shift seems to be under way. Would it be a change for the better? The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify. It is hard to imagine Ronald Reagan sponsoring a federal amendment banning gay marriage or limiting federal funding for stem-cell research. ... On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation.

In terms of foreign policy, ... some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade...

[But] America, even if it shifts to the left, will still be a conservative force on the international stage. Mrs Clinton might be portrayed as a communist on talk radio in Kansas, but set her alongside France's Nicolas Sarkozy ... or any other supposed European conservative, and on virtually every significant issue Mrs Clinton is the more right-wing. ... As for foreign policy, [none of] the main Democratic candidates ... has ruled out attacking Iran...

One finding that stands out in the polls is that most Americans distrust government strongly. Forty years ago they turned against a leftish elite trying to boss them around; now they have had to endure a right-wing version. In democracies political revolutions usually become obvious only in retrospect. ...

I'll have to leave the analysis to comments, but I want to highlight:

... Yet this President Bush is not a good scapegoat. Rather than betraying the right, he has given it virtually everything it craved... Many of the worst errors were championed by conservative constituencies. ...

There will be an attempt to cull Bush from the Republican herd in coming months, to claim he hasn't been faithful to the Republican vision as a means of trying to separate him from the GOP candidates. But as The Economist lays out clearly, he has been faithful, in the extreme. And as they also note when looking over the GOP field, "Mr. Bush's departure hardly guarantees a move back to the centre."

Comments

[Lafayette]

Mr Clinton is best remembered for balancing the budget and passing welfare reform, both conservative achievements … it is easy to see why Mr Bush and his strategist, Karl Rove, dreamed of banishing Democrats from power for a generation.

Look at the second sentence and let's complete it: They may have had such a dream, but their administration has been typified by three major foul-ups. The first being Katrina (thus showing the Right's disdain for anything but their white contingent. The second is Income Disparity, underscored by the wild-eyed revenues of the rich and super-rich in a country where the poor are everywhere and work increasingly precarious.

The third is the idiocy of the Iraq war and its confusion with the War on Terrorism. In fact, its end is nigh and in the long-run al Qaeda will go the way of all such movements in the past. To oblivion.

(I mention only these three. Others will certainly bring up even more.)

What does this mean for the “American Mentality”? It is likely to mean that “enough is enough”. But, it does not mean a swift and durable turn to the left.

The American ethos is distinctly and durably individualist. Most Americans do not want the state to interfere in their affairs, and they feel that even such matters of Health Care and Education are for them to chose/decide/undertake.

They will look for “quick fixes” for these and spare the rest. Income disparity will go by the boards as most Americans will expect that others should make an effort to “catch up”.

What’s the bottom-line, therefore? Americans will continue to believe that all is A-OK with America -- and the world should continue buying T-notes to support a living standard that is working on borrowed time. That social harmony should be maintained by a strong police and more prisons. This latter is a recipe for failure ... it attacks the problem but not its roots, risking serious social unrest at the most and a decline of personal security at the least.

I dislike Cassandras. But, given the evidence … I see no reawakening of the public conscience to the fundamental problems that constitute the rot eating away at America.

America is replete with hubris. The comparison with Rome -- at the tipping-point towards its decline -- could not be more obvious. Rome was prosperous, wealth was exaggeratedly obvious and cult-like, the Empire was vast but difficult to maintain without ever additional resources – all of which proved inevitably to be its downfall.

Ditto England at the end of the Victorian period at the turn of the 20th century. Are nations predestined to such implosions? No. But it can very decidedly happen.

God does not play favorites and it seems Americans have not understood that subtlety.

[supersaurus]

"...Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals..."

50/50 I guess, how else to explain their ability to consistently pass legislation contrary to the interests of most of the people who voted for them? is the great transfer of wealth to the rich now from poor and middle class people in the future innovation? cutting services for poor people? abusing the power of the executive while accreting more?

[Noni Mausa]

did this phrase...

intellectually inventive

... bother the rest of you as much as it did me? Is there a reason why The Economist wants to rebrand propaganda and logical absurdity in speech and thought as "inventiveness"?

Sheesh.

Noni

[Christine]

Is anyone else a little tired of this liberal-conservative false dichotomy? Are there truly no fiscally responsible social liberals?

[Lafayette]

NM: did this phrase... intellectually inventive ... bother the rest of you as much as it did me?

I might suggest that this was NOT meant in a political but business/technological context.

[ken melvin]

How others see us. Evrery time I read the Economists I am reminded of the ex-pat English sot reporter in 'The Bonfire of the Vanities'.

[Barry]

Mark, the Economist belongs with the WSJ editorial page when it comes to political analysis; they clearly made a right-wingnut turn a while back.

[bakho]

What they miss is that the "western" states are increasingly abandoning the "Southern Redneck" dominated GOP. Nixon made a deal with the devil when he invited the Southern racists to become Republicans. Southern rednecks run the GOP and they are alienating the rest of the country with their demands of political adherence to their religious beliefs and support of 'plantation economy' fiscal policy.

As for trade, what multilateral trade agreement has Bush successfully negotiated lately (ever). Southern rednecks don't negotiate.

Democrats in power will probably do more to help diplaced workers which will diffuse a lot of the anger over trade. Republicans refuse to help the diplaced and fuel anger over trade. Displaced workers are at the center of the immigration flap. Republicans are against universal health care that would make our workers more competitive with other countries. Trade gets all the blame, but it is failure to address the underlying issues that would force restrictions on free trade.

[Lafayette]

Barry: they clearly made a right-wingnut turn a while back.

Yeah ... in the 19th century. Where've you been ... ?

C'mon, enough of the sarcasm. It is one of the finest, most balanced newspapers on this planet - with a rightist penchant. But, it calls a spade a spade.

It's only disadvantage, apparently, is that it's not "Amerikun". You got a beef with it, find fault and argue it.

Otherwise, your posts are just farting in this forum.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/big_ideas.php

August 12, 2007

Big Ideas
By Matthew Yglesias

To me, one of the most sad/funny aspects of contemporary conservatism is that Newt Gingrich seems to count as some kind of towering intellectual figure. Garance Franke-Ruta reports that she saw him speaking at the Ames Straw Poll where he proclaimed that "Real change is going to require real change." And I suppose it will.

[Conservative inventiveness.]

[howard]

anyone who claims the primary issue in the ascendancy of the republican party was an "overreaching to the left" and not the migration of racist voters and their progeny from the dems to the republicans is not worth listening to on any other related matter.

[Robert]

Well, there were a few of us who voted for Bush in hopes of a little more fiscal discipline through spending discipline. It looks like the fiscal discipline is going to come via tax increases via tax cut rollbacks.

[anne]

Thank you, Howard. The change from a Democratic to Republican Congress begins with successful civil rights legislation that was played on to gradually change voting patterns in the South to what would become thoroughly Republican even at the cost of well-being in the South.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Barry has it right, about The Economist. After the retirement of editor Andrew Knight in 1986, The Economist turned from setting an intellectual standard for observation and analysis, to being less quantitative and fact-based, more ideological, and rhetorically glib, erring and a little pompous, in the style of the U.S. news monthlies like Time, and indeed, of some of the commenters to this blog. It's a long fall and sad. The Economist used to be genuinely enlightening.

[anne]

From the beginning, from the niserable New Gingrich Congress to the campaign of George Bush, any attention as Paul Krugman showed over and over would have told a voter just how fiscally rapacious Republican conservative had become.

[anne]

Yes; no matter the typically crude response, because after all, we must write crudely, Barry was completely reasonable. The Economist is a Tory publication that is always regretting Labor control in Britain, as British Tories continually self-destruct, and thinking America is the current Tory home.

[Bruce Wilder]

anne: "The change from a Democratic to Republican Congress begins with successful civil rights legislation that was played on to gradually change voting patterns in the South to what would become thoroughly Republican even at the cost of well-being in the South."

And, the "triangulation" of resentment, which made liberal a dirty word. The Nixon-Reagan strategy had a southern component, but at least as important was the alienation of the working class from alliance with upper-middle-class liberalism, and the subsequent destruction of unions. Liberals were taught to despise Unions, and the working class was encouraged to resent limosine liberals and dirty, friggin' hippy protestors.

[anne]

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/08/the_hard_right.php

August 12, 2007

The Hard Right
By Matthew Yglesias

Ron Brownstein focuses some attention on the much-neglected subject of hard-right opposition to any hints of reasonableness on the part of Republican Party politicians. When Joe Lieberman faced a primary challenge for the sin of relentlessly supporting a catastrophically failed policy, the political establishment reacted as if this was the End Times. Now that Chuck Hagel is facing a primary challenge for the sin of mildly gesturing toward the idea that maybe we should avoid catastrophically failed policy, nobody seems to care.

[Richard A.]

"But as The Economist lays out clearly, [Bush] has been faithful, in the extreme."

Like on immigration?

[Bruce Wilder]

The biggest obstacle to America turning Left, imo, is Media Consolidation.

If you are awake to what happened in America, 1994-2007?, the most remarkable thing is not the ascendancy of conservatism so much as the ascendancy of stupidity. Bush does not represent conservative ideas to me so much as he represents stupid. Granted, the conservative party is always the party of stupid, in a sense, but Bush is so clearly personally limited, and becoming progressively less capable, and so many of his policies are just a cover for wealth transfers to the rich, and otherwise destructive to the country, that you have to wonder how we got here.

And, I come back to Media Consolidation. The whole Whitewater "scandal" leading to impeachment was just bizarre, but was forced on the country by a Media out of control. The campaign of slander that Gore was subjected to, which "elected" Bush -- what was that about. The spectacle last week of O'Hanlon and Pollack portraying themselves as "critics" of the Bush war they have been cheerleading since day zero, and that, in turn, letting the Media trumpet "progress" in Iraq, when that luckless land continues to deteriorate. There are still not liberals on teevee, and Chris Matthews is complaining that the Democratic candidates are not fat enough, when he's not speculating on the scent of Republicans.

I fully expect Mr. Bernanke will lower interest rates, to try to prevent a recession in Bush's last 18 months from making Bush into Herbert Hoover for the 21st century. My reading is that Hillary is the candidate of the rich, and "the plan" is to make the consequences of the Bush debacle land on her watch. Hillary will "lose" Iraq by finally withdrawing, and the Media will suddenly report in magnifying detail all the horrors of the aftermath. Mr. Bernanke's mission is to preside over the inflation, which will destroy the Social Security Trust fund accumulation, and to ensure that the expiration of tax cuts in 2010 coincides with the first depression since the 1930's.

[Michael Cain]

"The Economist has never made any secret of its preference for the Republican Party's individualistic “western” wing rather than the moralistic “southern” one that Mr Bush has come to typify."

Yet even here it has been possible for the Republicans to overreach. In Colorado, by 2004, the party's local "strategists" who wrote regularly for the editorial pages were advocating individualism that included: the state colleges and universities should be cut loose to sink or swim as private schools (with the corresponding tuition hikes, of course), the state should raise revenue by selling the state highways everywhere to private firms to be operated as toll roads, and private charity as a viable alternative to Medicaid funding for medical services to the poor.

Prior to the 2004 elections, the Republicans held the Governor's Office and controlled both houses of the legislature. After the 2006 elections, the Democrats held all three.

[Bruce Webb]

Thank you Howard and Anne. Because the following is pretty much nonsense:

"From this perspective, the worrying parallel for the right is not 1992 but the liberal overreach of the 1960s. By embracing leftish causes that were too extreme for the American mainstream"

What part of the 60's agenda ENDED seeming extreme? Certainly there was controversy over Civil Rights, Environmentalism, the Woman's movement. And yes it had the near term effect of sending the racists and the know-nothings to the Republican Party. But is there really any serious 'mainstream' effort to abolish the EPA or overturn the Voting Rights Act of 1965 or the Clean Water Act or abolish Medicare? Not to say there are not people out there who don't advocate all four, but even Gingrich only edges up to the line and takes care not to cross it.

It is the point that Markos and Susan G made in their WaPo OpED How We Won the Mainstream. Examined over the long term (the environment and civil rights) and the medium term (war on Iraq) the Center has moved to a position that in the 60's was considered pretty far Left. It may seem like a matter of common sense that we don't allow cities to pour untreated sewage into rivers that supply people down stream or that refineries control their emissions. But as someone who had to hold their breath ever time we drove by the Chevron refinery in Richmond Ca in the 1960's, and a current resident of a town that not only had to condemn a whole neighborhood because of arsenic contamination from the smelter and which used to smell horrible because of the toxins coming out of the paper mills I can assure you that it was not always that way.

Certainly at points America had to be dragged kicking and screaming along the way, and substantial minorities still resist any kind of progressive agenda, but the notion that the sixties agenda was some fundamental failure is just to internalize the whole 'Silent Majority' narrative pushed by the Right. Look if I had walked into any bar in California in 1967 or for that matter 1987 and predict they would all be smoke free by 2007 I would have been regarded as a dangerous, and for that matter, Un-American lunatic. Same thing for bike helmets for kids. Are there really a lot of parents who mutter about lost freedoms when the strap those helmets on today?

[SanFranciscoJim]

Liberals were taught to despise Unions, and the working class was encouraged to resent limosine liberals and dirty, friggin' hippy protestors.

Perhaps, but who "taught" them that and why were they so stupid as to buy into a bunch of nonsense that was clearly in their own worst interest?

You can say "the media" and I think that is part of the answer, but much more of the answer is that people in those groups found it in their liking to let themselves be cleaved along class and race lines. The old popular front, which worked so well for FDR, eventually fell apart due to its own internal contradictions, not really because of anything that Conservatives did to bring its fall about.

And we have another sort of nascent new popular front, united by a common enemy, which can probably be counted on to form an electoral majority for a while now. I think it is important for this group to focus on the things that it agrees upon, like health care reform, and make some positive change before it too falls apart, as these groups must always do.

[SanFranciscoJim]

What part of the 60's agenda ENDED seeming extreme?

You must have forgotten about all those domestic bombing campaigns by the Weather Underground, or the armed self-determination rhetoric (and occasional shoot out with the police) advocated by the Black Panther's.

These fringe left groups, which were more than happy to use violence to advance their political agenda, were used to tar the entire left wing, including much less radical groups like SDS, and by extention, the entire anti-war movement.

Now most people agree today that the Vietnam war was a mistake, but the tactics used by some on the left to express their disagreement led to Nixon's election. Imagine how the GOP would do in 2008 if we had daily acts of domestic terrorism in American cities.

[anne]

"The old popular front, which worked so well for FDR, eventually fell apart due to its own internal contradictions, not really because of anything that Conservatives did to bring its fall about."

Actually Democrats were the majority party in Congress almost continually from 1932 to 1994 and are the majority party in Congress again. The real break of course coming as the South turned increasingly Republican in direct response to the success of civil rights legislation. The rest of the "internal contradiction" analysis is menaingless.

[cm]

Bruce Wilder: Your analysis sounds entirely plausible, I'm afraid.

[Lee A. Arnold]

Indeed there were 300 or 400 of those bombings, leading to the suspicion that some may have been done by government agent provocateurs, in order to discredit the anti-war movement and the Left. I believe the last issue of the very great Scanlon's Monthly magazine (in 1970?) was seized before distribution, for investigating this story.

[Bruce Webb]

Jim trying to equate the agenda of the Weather Underground or the Black Panthers with "liberal overreach" is kind of a stretch. Now certainly there was a minority of limousine liberals that consciously embraced this kind of revolutionary jargon, I mean I did read Radical Chic & the Mau Mau Flak Catchers which describes the reception that Leonard Bernstein put on for the Black Panthers. For that matter I spent most of the years from 1964 and 1993 in the hyper-liberal to radical confines of Marin County and Berkeley, there is not much about radical overreach that I didn't observe first-hand.

But trying to identify this with the political movement that brought us the Civil Rights Act of 1965, the Clean Water Act, the establishment of the EPA and the creation of Medicare goes too far. Most of these radical groups disassociated themselves with the political process altogether and certainly didn't identify with liberal Democrats of the type that pushed these agendas through. On the other hand former Black Panther Bobby Rush is now Congressman Bobby Rush, Chicago Seven defendent and SDS founder Tom Hayden is now a State Senator, and Todd Gitlin has made the transition from SDS president to progressive commentator at TPM Cafe. Not because any of these three appreciably sold out, instead they have seen much of their agenda internalized and mainstreamed by the Democratic Party and the country as a whole. After all who exactly is still making excuses for the apartheid regime in South Africa or Pinochet's Chile? Positions that were regarded as hopelessly radical in the early 80's are moving closer and closer to the center.

[evagrius]

"Better organised and more intellectually inventive than their “liberal” rivals, American conservatives have controlled the agenda even when they have lost."

Better organised, yes.

"Intellectually inventive"?

I think the first step to being intellectually inventive is to acknowledge the reality before you. Doing that takes a great amount of honesty.
I don't see that in the "conservative" movement.
Rather, there's denial.
From the simple fact of climate change to economic disparities to Iraq, the conservatives have denied the reality facing the U.S. and the world.
The inventiveness that's being praised is really an excellent denial of reality.

[german_reader]

It's sad to see the American majority is so much on the right. After all the United States remain the most influential country in the world. It sets standards and it dominates the international policy. An extremly conservative government, like we saw over the last years, can block even the modest progressive attempts for an international cooperation, we have today ( for example measures against climate change ). Positions broadly accepted in many other countries seem to be radical in the United States.

This wouldn't be a problem, if the United States were an insignificant little country at the outer limits of the world ( sorry dear kiwis ). But with its current influence, economic and political power it sets trends , dragging down the standards in other countries.

You can see this in many areas. Tony Blair and some other political leaders certainly wouldn't have begun a hazardous war in the near East, if Mr. GWB wouldn't have summoned them. The ever more aggressive form of modern shareholder capitalism and financial engineering ( hedge funds, private equity ) was developed in the United States. Dogmatic supply-side economics and the increasingly shameless redistribution of wealth form the bottom to the top started under Reagan in the United States ( and Thatcher in the United Kingdom ). Unregulated globalization, that harms many workers, was promoted and realized under the leadership of the United States ( with Germany as major exporter at its side ).

The influence of the United States goes so far, that even explicit political terms are transfered to other countries. German conservatives for example used the term "Todessteuer" ( "death tax" ) in their current campaign against the inheritance tax, borrowed from the US discussion. And the unbridled way corporate America corrupts and misuses the government for its own interest, is a permanent incentive for the "investors class" in other countries to try the same.

The United States show, how far a government can go, before people realize, that they are betrayed. And it demonstrates, that even in a democracy a government can decide against the will and the interest of the majority, without being punished. No wonder, that the German governments of the last decades ( Kohl, Schroeder, Merkel ) implemented "reforms", which are often opposed by 70-80% of the population ( like pension age 67, cut backs in unemployment benefits ( Hartz-IV ) or the denial of a minimum wage, which is supported by more than two third of the voters ).

It's not the United States alone, we have our own idiots. But the United States are a prototype for a conservative roll back in many countries. I would like to see an United States, that acts at the top of progressive reforms, that promotes progressive standards, which make the world more human, more social and more sustainable ( environment protection, energy use ). The chances are quiet low. In its current form the United States are a permanent thread to the progress realized in other countries.

[german_reader]

Should be "threat" not "thread".

[evagrius]

german_reader ;

One of the cultural elements that dominates thinking, ( if that's what it is), in the U.S. is a fixation on the supposed glorious era immediately after WWII. The U.S. was then the premier country and economy. It was on top of the world being the only major country with innovation, consumer products, ( autos, TVs, refrigerators),creativity, culture etc;. Of course, that lasted only a few years. By the mid-sixties, Europe and Japan had begun to catch up in terms of economic strength and even consumer product innovations.
By the 70's the U.S. was barely ahead.
It's continued to lag in develoment in many areas where it once was sole leader.
Conservatives are angry and frustrated at this and wish, desperately wish, for the post-WWII era to reappear. This anger and wish for the past was given utterance and credence with Reagan and it hasn't stopped since.
If one stops to think about it, the U.S. hasn't really progressed in a deep way since the early sixties.
Yes, there has been progress in civil rights, some personal liberties and some technological innovations but in essence, the U.S. is conceptually mired in the late fifties.

[KThomas]

No, it's not Bush's fault. No siree.

He's blameless.

[ECONOMISTA NON GRATA]

"Yes, there has been progress in civil rights, some personal liberties and some technological innovations but in essence, the U.S. is conceptually mired in the late fifties."

evagrius: You hit the nail right on the head. The "fix my broken toys" syndrome. I want my illusion back. Where's that friendly milk man? It was an illusion, was it not? Reality is disturbing and we all yearn for the "Good ole days". The problem is that the "good ole days", weren't really so good, were they? Oh boy...! Just look at what reality is doing to us. "The Greatest Country In The World.....? Someone mentioned Rome, not even close, just a flash in the pan by comparison.

And now for the next chapter. Let's just keep our fingers crossed.

Best regards,

Econolicious

[ken melvin]

Inventive deniality.

[James Killus]

In the 1980s, The Economist decided to greatly expand its American operations. Before that, the magazine was imported, or so I surmise from the fact that I had to buy it at a newstand that carried foreign magazines, and it was printed on nearly tissue thin paper; I guessed at the time it was for weight reduction in shipping.

In expanding their U.S. footprint, they expanded their U.S. coverage, and to do so, they hired a lot of U.S. correspondents from the U.S. financial press. It's very easy for me to believe that this skewed their coverage toward the new strange attractors of Reagan, supply-side economics (which was then less psychotic than it is now, which isn't saying much, but still), and the home town favorite, Maggie Thatcher.

Realize, one could never believe The Economist on Ireland or India; that went without saying. But over time, the lacunae have expanded, and the areas in which you can believe them have become small enough so that I'll probably cease reading them sometime soon (their science and technology section is still interesting, I'll note).

On a separate issue, I think that Bruce Wilder makes a good worst case scenario from a certain perspective, but I think that A) it gives far to much credit to a pack of nimrods to believe that they are able to come up with a plan that elegant on their own, B) it takes too great a belief in the competence of said nimrods that they could hold a plan together that long, C) it does not take "changes in the facts on the ground" into account (you really believe that Iraq/Afghanistan will hold together long enough for the next election?), and D) it is a strategy where politicians are expecting to advance their interests by losing elections, which, as a general matter, has seldom produced a winning strategy in the past.

I'm certainly prepared for the next number of years (exact time indeterminate) to be both ugly and stupid. But Mayberry Machiavellis always overplay their hand, and most of what they've won so far has been through vile luck (e.g. Sept. 11), and the fact that this country doesn't have a good procedure for dealing with organized crime.

[Bruce Wilder]

James Killus: " . . . it gives far to[o] much credit to a pack of nimrods . . ."

I don't imagine that there has been much deliberate plotting and planning among a secret cabal.

But, I do think the Money in the Republican Party is far more realistic and aware than the pack of opportunists running for the Republican nomination for President, or the corrupt fools, who staff the minority in Congress. They are reconciled to a Democrat, and "hopeful" that Hillary is someone they can work with.

Bush will try to avoid withdrawing from Iraq for his own reasons, just as Bernanke will try to avoid a "hard-landing" recession, because he thinks of that as his job, and mostly will just put off the inevitable, for the same reason. The expiration of tax cuts was built into the original Bush proposal, from gutless expediency, not foresight.

Republicans will try to sink the next Democratic Administration, for the same basic reasons that they tried to sink the last Democratic Administration -- it is what they do.

And, the Media will cooperate in the spinning out of narratives, which blame Democrats for everything and "forget" Republican responsibility for anything, because Republicans own the Media.

You can just assume that most of the political actors on the Right will act as they always do, will act pretty much like zombie nimrods if you like, and it will still add up to a political tendency of the kind I outlined.

[gordon]

James Killus threw me for a moment with his reference to organised crime - organised crime??? But then I realised that it depends on what you mean by that. It makes sense if you equate it with B. deLong's comment on a Krugman piece back in Feb. 2006. Krugman was discussing the likely effects of rising inequality in US society, concluding with:

Should we be worried about the increasingly oligarchic nature of American society? Yes, and not just because a rising economic tide has failed to lift most boats. Both history and modern experience tell us that highly unequal societies also tend to be highly corrupt. There's an arrow of causation that runs from diverging income trends to Jack Abramoff and the K Street project.

That'll do for organised crime.

DeLong then extended Krugman's analysis as follows:

Say, rather, that five things are going on:

1. The rise of a very powerful, successful, exploitative upper class.
2. Further increases in inequality as the tax and transfer system becomes less progressive.
3. Increases in risk that threaten to move middle-class families sharply downward in the wealth distribution.
4. Skill-biased technical change that sharply raises the benefits to education.
5. Holes in the safety net--the fall in the value of the minimum wage, time-limited welfare, and so forth.

There comes a time when the existence of an actual conspiracy ceases to matter. People will want something done.

[James Killus]

Bruce Wilder,

I think that the "Money in the Republican Party" is actually no brighter than the gang of candidates. In fact, I think their suits are cut from the same cloth and that there is nothing much in them (I hope I haven't gotten too obscure with that "empty suit" reference; I'm obviously having some trouble in that regard as witness Gordon's brief confusion).

I certainly agree with your point about leopards having spots and Movement Conservatives trying to destroy any Democratic administration, or for that matter any actually democratic institution in this country. There was a time when "conservative" meant trying to conserve vital institutions and resources (there was a time when conservatives were also conservationists, for example) but that time has long since passed.

However, there is now the interesting point that there is no longer any baby in that bathwater, and the advantage that they used to have, that no one knew (or could bring themselves to believe) what they were up to, is fading quickly.

I am optimistic in the sense that I am sure they will lose. I am pessimistic enough to think that there is a high probability that we all will.

[Lafayette]

LA: The Economist used to be genuinely enlightening.

It still is. Learn to read it without wearing rose-coloured glasses.

And keep your deprecative ad hominems to yourself. They are unappreciated.

If you don't like the content of the posts here, you are invited to post elsewhere.

[gordon]

I wonder if the leopard-spotted suits of Movement Conservatives can ever be wetted by the babyless bathwater, and whether the advantage they might have thought that emptyness might have bathed them in could fade the gang. It doesn't take much to sink an unloseable election in the Republican Media or forget that zombie nimrods who are both ugly and stupid can easily become lost in the lacunae.

[Lafayette]

JK: In fact, I think their suits are cut from the same cloth

Yes, well, it would be nice if that cloth was prison-striped.

I cannot imagine why Americans think that vested-interest money that funds political war chests is "freedom of speech".

Money talks? Well, it shouldn't in politics. Whatever it has to say is partisan. It should be made illegal and political campaigns funded by the public purse.

There would be more real debate of issues and less malarkey advertising on television during the political campaigns that resemble a circus.

[cm]

gordon: " 4. Skill-biased technical change that sharply raises the benefits to education."

I'd rephrase that as "... that sharply penalizes failure to have obtained the right credentials".

[8]

Anyone who thinks Bush gave conservatives what they wanted, besides tax cuts and judges doesn't know any conservatives or doesn't know what conservatives believe in. If the Economist's view is widespread, I don't doubt that conservatives will be back in power soon.

[Thomas More]

"On the one issue where Mr Bush fought the intolerant wing of his party, immigration, the nativists won—and perhaps lost the Latino vote for a generation."

I am amazed at this late date you would be buying this stale propaganda. That bill was defeated, and rightfully so, by a majority of the American people that care for their country.

Illegal immigrants don't vote and if you lived in the Southwest or California you'd know that most Latino citizens are opposed to illegal immigration. So don't count them as lost. And please, no more of the elite/racist nonsense about nativist/xenophobe/anti-everything did it.

[kharris]

The author of the Economist piece is either awfully partisan, badly misinformed, or both. The evidence of this article suggests both, but that may be another manifestation of what the author calls "intellectual inventiveness". (Go, Noni!)

Extremism is not conservatism. George Bush is not a conservative, much less the most conservative president in recent history. Does conservatism tolerate government secrecy? Government intrusion? Trammeling of citizen's liberty? Not the conservatism that I learned at my father's knee. (Ronald Reagan thought enough of my father's brand of conservatism to bring him toWashington.) I can live with conservatives or with liberals. Why on earth do we have to live with opportunists and liars in power and their apologists in journalism?

Implying that a lack of "slickness" is the big difference between between Rudy and the Democratic leaders is to suggest that his loyalty to positions adopted by the current president, who is among histories least popular presidents at this point, is not much of an issue. The author seems to have practices a bit of slickness himself in this suggestion.

In pleading that Bush gave "conservatives" what they want, the Economist is confounding self-proclaimed conservatives – those who worked relentlessly to make "liberal" a dirty word – with anything that would traditionally been call conservative. Imposing a chief justice who is among the youngest in history, thus lacking much record to which either side could object, is hardly doing anyone any favors. The fact that Bush shares the love of big government held by his party in Congress is hardly an excuse for abandoning principle. The "in" party likes big government in practice. True conservatives distrust it on principle. A lack of principle clears up that conflict nicely, but represents a far bigger problem in itself.

[Lee A. Arnold]

"Otherwise, your posts are just farting in this forum."

"If you don't like the content of the posts here, you are invited to post elsewhere."

Make these two statements agree with each other: Use as much egotism and hypocrisy as you require!

[wjd123]

In terms of foreign policy, ... some of the changes that would stem from a more Democratic America would be unwelcome. The Democrats are moving to the left not just on health care, but also on trade...

Unwelcome? Do I sniff a bit of elitism here? I think a better question is who is to blame for this unwelcomeness?

Historically it was liberals who favored free trade and conservatives who were more isolationist. But ever since NAFTA it has been democratic majorities in congress that have opposed free trade agreements. It has been the elites in the Democratic Party who along with a minority of democratic members of congress that have favored them. (The elitist slant also applies to a tilt toward open border policies--the non-enforcement of our present laws. Would the editorial page of the New York Times represent the opinions of limousine liberals? I really don't how these liberals are identified. Are elitists and limousine liberals the same thing? )

I think that a careful look at the trade agreement situation would find that union leaders were willing to support free trade as long as it came with standards, They probably could have sold it to the rank and file with their inclusion. I would also like to point out that this is a much more liberal policy than the present elitist free trade policies since it would have required a more inclusive form of international government.

One may think that labor's support of standards were just a way to kill these agreements, but since there were none with a workable enforcement mechanism, we simply don't know. Why not come to the conclusion that free trade simply can't be sustained without standards, instead of voters are ignorant or labor is reactionary. Why not come to the conclusion that compromise is harder now because no one trusts the elites after their sell out.

Now that the backlash is developing I can't help noticing how the same elitist who sold out labor with NAFTA have found a way to cover their behinds. It was their sell out of liberal internationalism that is responsible for the backlash, and not ignorant isolationist labor and stupid voters. Excuse me if I'm not buying it. It was the democratic elites who sold out liberalism and internationalism, not labor and the voters. If things turn out badly because voters won't go any farther with an elitist form of free trade, it is the elites who have themselves to blame and no one else.

And while I'm on the subject of not trusting elites let me pick of Paul Krugman. He pushed to get rid of Medicare subsidies to insurance companies and use them to finance health insurance for uninsured children. He also supported this move to save Medicare from encroaching privatization by republicans.

There are many people like myself who are in these private plans because of the high cost of traditional Medicare's co-payments and deductibles. I was willing to go along with the change even though I suspected it would hurt me financially. I thought he was right about private insurance companies having an unfair competitive advantage which weakened traditional Medicare. The one objection I made was that taking from the needy in order to give to the more needy wasn't very progressive.

Now I find that Democrats took part of the Medicare subsidy money to subsidize hospitals and doctors instead of using it for insuring children. Marcy Kaptor, my favorite Democrat, used some of the subsidies as an employment policy. Put aside the argument of saving Medicare from republican privatization and I'm still left wondering when democrats are going to start asking for progressive taxation to fund their projects. Even if their only option for the present is to rearrange available funds, one would think democrats could do a better job then this.

[James Killus]

The tone of the several posts from Lafayette on this set of comments is sufficiently disjointed as to make me wonder if someone is again doing impersonations. Lafayette is seldom rude in the sort of fashion shown in the 7:28 AM posting.

One problem in the general political debate is that "right wing" and "conservative" are used synonymously, as are "left wing" and "liberal" (or "progressive," as liberals throw in the towel, either from demonization fatigue, or simple exhaustion from hearing Social Darwinists explain that they are "19th Century Liberals"). There's also the problem of "authoritarian."

This piece is a good description of the implications of right wing belief, but it uses "conservative" as the descriptor, though it also does a good job of explaining why right wing philosophy is invariably a (selectively) conservative one.

But if "conservative" means someone who is loath to make radical or rapid changes, then someone who supports Social Security is being conservative, as are those who used to be called "conservationists" and are now called "environmentalists" and who are despised by right wing radicals who call themselves conservatives.

However, war in inherently radical, never conservative, and when politics becomes warfare conducted by other means, then conservatism is untenable. So right or left, authoritarian or democratic, those become the choices, and allegiances must be declared. Sheep must be separated from goats.

People always wish to conserve their own rights, privileges, and property. If they believe that those are under threat from those with fewer privileges, they lean rightward. If they believe the real danger is from above, they lean left. If Amaricans are turning leftward, it is because they are noticing the innocence of the scapegoats and the mendacity of the goatherds. Even sheep look up eventually.

[Patricia Shannon]

Bruce Wilder, you are right about the media.
http://www.dailyhowler.com/
is a good source of info on the way the media continually slants political reporting against the Democrats and for the Republicans.

[lonesome moderate]

Well, as I remember it, the "liberal overreach" that made Democrats unpopular in the 1970s included the following:

1) The end of capital punishment, a tremendous reduction in prison sentences, and a vast array of new restrictions on what police officers and prosecutors could do in catching and convicting criminals, which, coincidentally or not, came at the same time as sharp increases in crime. More than anything else, this is what got Nixon elected. Many of these restrictions were ended by judges appointed by Republicans (and, at the state level, by Republican governors and legislatures). This was followed--again, coincidentally or not--by a major reduction in crime.

2) The program (originated by the courts) of busing schoolchildren long distances in order to achieve racial balance in public schools. This was a huge issue in the seventies, when busing was at its peak.

3) Racial quotas in hiring and school admissions (arguably necessary at the time, but very unpopular and now largely abandoned).

4) An enormous expansion of the welfare state through a wide variety of programs. Many have proven to be effective and popular and have endured, but many others proved to be of questionable utility and were ended by Republicans. Ronald Reagan was elected partly on the strength of his many anecdotes of people abusing AFDC, food stamps, and unemployment insurance. The cut programs have either not been restored or have been cut further, through both Democratic and Republican presidencies and congresses.

5) The Equal Rights Amendment, which almost passed but then led to an enormous backlash that hurt the Democrats badly, before it was finally abandoned.

6) Roe v. Wade.

I think it's fair to say that the liberal agenda of the 1970s included many ideas which, rightly or wrongly, were unpopular with a majority or near-majority of Americans, and a lot of them are as unpopular now as they were then.

[Producer]

Wow, if this reflective of the way Europeans think of the US then I am very happy to be a conservative and it remains clearer than before why it has surpassed the other in productivity, innovation and meaning.

[Producer]

"Money talks? Well, it shouldn't in politics. Whatever it has to say is partisan."

Dear Confused, politics is partisan...

[Firozali A.Mulla MBA PhD]

Karl Rove To Quit
I am not sure but I have a nasty taste in my mouth about so many people leaving the white house after the Iraq war. No time had I read in any American President’s time about so many people leaving the White House?
Colin Powell left, some judges left, the head of The CIA left.
When man leave, then there is something wrong at the upper level. I do not know but the mortgage hit and wiped out many on the 10 August 2007 and the Central bank had to come to rescue the banks from sinking and save the balances.
This is shocking for the economy and politics. We lose the trust.

[Lafayette]

JK: In fact, I think their suits are cut from the same cloth

Yes, well, it would be nice if that cloth was prison-striped.

I cannot imagine why Americans think that vested-interest money that funds political war chests is "freedom of speech".

Money talks? Well, it shouldn't in politics. Whatever it has to say is partisan. It should be made illegal and political campaigns funded by the public purse.

There would be more real debate of issues and less malarkey advertising on television during the political campaigns that resemble a circus.

[Lafayette]

Producer: politics is partisan ...

If allowed to, yes. But, and when that happens it descends to the lunacy of American political contests where media image is a surrogate for political program, and defamation a surrogate for probity -- which vested-money funded politic campaigns has developed stateside.

In American politics, what matters is NOT how you play the game, but that you win it.

It isn't that way in a great many "developed" western societies. I suggest you look beyond the three-mile limit to understand. America has not yet got the hint. (In fact, in some countries abroad, the defamation employed on American television -- in the name of "freedom of speech" -- can land a candidate in court for defamation.)

Just look at the mess the US is in because moneyed-interests control the levers of power. You call that democracy, when politicians are almost wholly selected from one class of the population ... those rich enough to fund an election campaign and idle enough to want it?

And, what is the solution? This controversy has been a public debate for decades. Laws were supposedly passed to mitigate its influence. And, for what? It did not stop Big Oil from donating 50 megabucks to get lead-head elected.

Big Money is the same on both isles of the political divide. In fact, the use of moneyed-interests in politics is typical of the America mindset. If one cannot apply a money value to something, whether a political debate or a policy statement, then no one understands its importance.

What does that mean for morality, which is impossible to estimate financially? Or decency? These too are attributes of an advanced democracy.

[real person from the real world]

Anyone reading this blog page: Read German_Reader and Lonesome Moderate: Best of the comments here.

[real person from the real world]

Repeat of LONESOME MODERATE:
I think it's fair to say that the liberal agenda of the 1970s included many ideas which, rightly or wrongly, were unpopular with a majority or near-majority of Americans, and a lot of them are as unpopular now as they were then.
GORDON:
Say, rather, that five things are going on:
1. The rise of a very powerful, successful, exploitative upper class.
2. Further increases in inequality as the tax and transfer system becomes less progressive.
3. Increases in risk that threaten to move middle-class families sharply downward in the wealth distribution.
4. Skill-biased technical change that sharply raises the benefits to education.
5. Holes in the safety net--the fall in the value of the minimum wage, time-limited welfare, and so forth.

[lonesome mo]

Thanks, always nice to get an atta-boy. Quite remarkable how much the center of gravity has changed in less than thirty years.

[NLS]

God, someone please kill me. Why do I only open the Economist and look at the Big Mac Index? Captain Obvious to the rescue.

It's not even enjoyable to hear them backtrack their pro-oust Saddam platform back in 02-03.

But, hey, we all need good crapper material.

[NLS]

Lafayette says...

"C'mon, enough of the sarcasm. It is one of the finest, most balanced newspapers on this planet - with a rightist penchant. But, it calls a spade a spade.

It's only disadvantage, apparently, is that it's not "Amerikun". You got a beef with it, find fault and argue it."

Uh, hmmmmmm... Let me think hard. Iraq? Yeah, Iraq. Remember Iraq?

Big Mac Index, ONLY.