ThinkProgress Logo

Yglesias

Center-Right Nations

Steve Benen wants to open up some debate: “is this a ‘center-right’ nation? What’s the appropriate metric to even consider such a question?”

I think it’s easier to start with what’s not an appropriate metric, namely the public policy decisions made by elected and appointed officials of the United States government. This is where conventional analysis goes awry. On the one hand you have pundits inferring public views about policy matters from markers of ideological self-identification. On the other hand you have pundits trying to make arguments about voter self-identification based on policy views. But political behavior isn’t generally about policy. Most people don’t have opinions on most subjects, most people’s opinions aren’t especially coherent, and even for people who do have a lot of fairly coherent opinions it’s simply not possible to engage in political action based on more than a few of them.

The fact that many more Americans self-identify as conservative than as liberal doesn’t, I think, tell us anything about anything other than their self-identification. But this self-identification is still important. For a conservative politician “I’m a conservative, he’s the liberal” is a winning message in most jurisdictions whereas “I’m a liberal, he’s the conservative” generally isn’t. In California things are different, because the California electorate is more liberal than the national electorate (note that this fact has no impact on Californians’ irrational attachment to Proposition 13—politics isn’t about policy). This gets Democrats tied up in endless rounds of self-defeating triangulation and internecine battles which, in turn, has real implications for what gets done policy-wise.

But one thing I would note about this is that even though the United States is different from other countries in many respects, almost every country seems to me to be a center-right nation. Look at the postwar political history of, say, France and you’ll find that the Socialist Party is spectacularly unsuccessful. I think you’ll find that the reason for this is that nationalism is a generally winning political strategy. So if you look at Canada, you find a country where the center-right has difficulty achieving political dominance because Anglophone and Francophone nationalists don’t cooperate well. The exception to this rule is Sweden, where from the Depression forward for about 55 years the Social Democrats successfully dominated with an unusual form of left-wing nationalism. But for the past 20 years or so, I’d say that’s dominance has down as immigration has made it a more diverse society.

Yglesias

Land Value Tax

This isn’t really apropos of anything, but is there any reason at all to think it makes sense to tax property values rather than land? I wasted an hour or so this morning googling and reading about the idea of a land-value tax and the case for it seems (a) extremely compelling and (b) to be made primarily by cranks. So what gives here? How come the economists of America aren’t uniting in insistence that we make the switch?

To lay the case out simply, the problem with taxes from the standpoint of economic efficiency is that they reduce the incentives to do stuff. If you tax wages, that reduces your incentive to do useful work. If you tax property values, that reduces your incentive to invest in valuable structures. But the land area of jurisdictions is more or less fixed. Obviously there are some exceptions but in general the land area of the United States of America is not subject to change. So there’s no productive activity to disincentivize. Sounds awesome. But instead of being in place throughout the country, we use this system in just a few parts of Pennsylvania.

Politics

Racially Tinged Conservative Attack Ad Warns About Congressman’s Ties To Arab-Americans

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) is in a tough reelection fight against Spike Maynard, a formerly Democratic judge who switched parties this year to challenge Rahall as a Republican. Maynard’s bid — the first credible challenge to Rahall in years — has strong backing from national Republicans, including an endorsement from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and support from the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns program (despite the fact that Maynard is in his 60s).

Maynard has also received support from outside conservative groups, like the West Virginia Conservative Fund. The group’s new ad makes a fairly apparent attempt to appeal to bigots, fear mongering about Rahall’s work doing outreach to Arab-Americans during President Obama’s 2008 campaign:

Unfortunately, this is not the first racial ad of the race. A recent spot run by Maynard’s campaign itself attacks Rahall’s vote for the stimulus package by stating that the program gave tax breaks to Chinese companies, and thus Rahall cares more about creating jobs for Chinese people than Americans. “It’s on our jeans. Even on children’s toys — ‘Made in China,’” the ad’s narrator says ominously. “With skyrocketing unemployment, only a politician who’s been in Washington for 34 years would vote to help foreign companies making Chinese windmills.” The ad was so ugly, and its claims so baseless, that lawyers from Rahall’s campaign asked TV stations running the spot to take it down.

Maynard is a notoriously close friend of West Virginia’s coal industry, even taking a trip to Monte Carlo with Massey Energy CEO Don Blankenship while he served as chief justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court. The trip occurred as Maynard’s court was hearing a trial involving Massey, and the revelation of the luxury vacation forced Maynard to recuse himself from the case in shame. (HT: Reader Daniel)

Politics

UK Conservative Prime Minister Distances Himself From ‘Culture War’ Of American Tea Parties

cameronHertiage Foundation analyst Nile Gardiner claimed last month that the “the conservative revolution that is sweeping America” offers “the best hope for saving the future of the Special Relationship” between the UK and the US. But conservative UK Prime Minister David Cameron poured cold water on that assessment. In an interview with The Financial Times, Cameron emphasized his “differences with the American Right,” particularly the tea parties’ desire to engage in a “culture war“:

Later, I would ask him what he thinks of American conservatism’s lurch to the libertarian extreme.

“How shall I put this? We seem to have drifted apart… there is an element of American conservatism that is headed in a very culture war direction, which is just different. There are differences with the American right.”

Indeed, the passion of the tea party movement seems to arise from racial angst, an anti-immigrant posture, opposition to gay rights, and Islamophobic fears, among other factors. Those issues seem to have less sway with conservatives across the pond. One British conservative activist, who is trying to lead a British tea party-like effort, conceded, “We are less concerned with God, guns and gays.”

Yglesias

Counterterrorism Thought of the Day

According to my calculation, if we were to cut America’s $663.8 billion defense budget by 1%, that would free up enough funds to double the budget of the FBI. Doesn’t it seem like that would probably, on net, reduce the risk of Americans dying in a terrorist attack? And in the meantime we might catch some more bank robbers or other banal threats to public safety.

Politics

Cantor Claims $2.8 Trillion In New Debt Is Greater Than $10.6 Trillion In Existing Debt

The GOP has been roundly panned for many of its claims in the “Pledge to America”. They declared that it was a grassroots-inspired document, despite being authored by a lobbyist for AIG, Exxon Mobil, and Pfizer. House Republicans maintained that it wasn’t necessary to include an earmark ban because they already had a self-imposed moratorium, despite the fact that the agreement expires before the next Congress even begins.

Now, House GOP Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) is peddling absurd claims about the Pledge’s fiscal policies. Responding to a question during a conference call with Republican supporters on Thursday, Cantor claimed that next Congress, the GOP would “stop this cycle of” deficit spending because, he alleges, the increase in the national debt we’ve incurred since President Obama took office “has exceeded that which this country has incurred over the last 200″ years.

JAMES: I’ve been very concerned for quite some time about the fact that the national debt just keeps growing, growing and growing. The point being that it’s around $13 trillion now. What makes us different than, say, Greece or Spain, in terms of facing collapse while we’ve already borrowed all the money we can from China. It appears to me that we have the Federal Reserve loaning money to the Treasury, for God’s sake. What’s going to stop this?

CANTOR: Well James, we can stop it, and that’s why we need your help. We’ve got to stop this cycle of spending money we don’t have. This spending and debt we’ve incurred over the last two years has exceeded that which this country has incurred over the last 200. And so, you’re right by issuing the alarm that if we do not stop and arrest this trend, we will become like those European welfare state countries where more and more people are going to be taking more benefits from the government than that which they pay in.

Listen here:

Both assertions are laughable. First, CAP’s analysis found that the GOP’s policy proposals in the Pledge would result in a budget deficit that was $200 billion larger in 2020 than it would be under President Obama’s budget, “and over the next 10 years deficits would be $1.5 trillion higher than under the president’s budget.” Consider the two plans side-by-side:

budgetcomparison.jpg

Second, on the day President Obama took office, the national debt stood at a record $10.6 trillion. Since then, the debt has increased an additional $2.8 trillion. The notion that President Obama incurred more debt over the past year and a half than had been incurred in the two centuries prior is comically false.

It seems that “Young Gun” Cantor — the brains behind the GOP’s “You Cut” website — needs a basic class in accounting.

Yglesias

Against Pessimism

I’m fairly certain he’ll write me off as part of the problem for saying this, but Jonathan Schwarz wrote something fairly recently that I think is worth responding to:

The problem is that the people who run America, and every other country on earth, have almost always been mind-numbingly brutal, cruel and stupid. Even the ones who aren’t (in Sweden, maybe?) are no prize.

For instance, take a look at the below scene from the documentary Our Brand in Crisis. In it, Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada, a rich white presidential candidate in Bolivia, talks with his rich white acquaintances at a campaign event in the garden of his home. Everything about it could have happened in any number of countries in history—because elites aren’t just always brutal, cruel and stupid, they’re brutal, cruel and stupid in exactly the same ways. A demagogue has somehow illegitimately gained support among the poor! The poor are massing at the gates and about to attack us!

This leads me to believe the problem isn’t one of bad individuals, but bad systems—and that these bad systems, since they’re almost universal in human history, grow out of some aspect of human nature. Hence, eating the people at the top won’t change much for very long. We’ll just have to eat a new crop a few years later.

Great movie. But I think this kind of world-historical pessimism is really mistaken. The average Chinese person today is clearly much better off than the average Chinese person of 30 years ago. Same in India or Brazil or Indonesia. The same in all the Central European countries that are now liberal democracies. And the same is true even in Russia that’s not a liberal democracy. Median income in the United States is only up slightly over thirty years and that’s a shame, but there is the “new goods” issue along with the fact that an awful lot of the families in this country were in Mexico 30 years ago where average living standards are much lower. But for that matter, the average Mexican in Mexico is much better-off than the average Mexican was 30 years ago.

Which is all just to say that for all the world is a rotten and cruel place ruled by rotten and cruel people, it really is getting better. A lot better. And there’s something ultimately very conservative about the kind of apocalyptic worldview that just writes everyone and everything off as irremediably rotten and cruel. Things have improved a lot. Things should improve more in the future. Progress is slow and frustrating, but also real.

Politics

As More Bullying Victims Commit Suicide, Right-Wing Groups Decry Anti-Bullying Policies As ‘Gay Agenda’ Ploy

clementiLast week, Rutgers University freshman Tyler Clementi jumped to his death after two classmates secretly recorded his sexual relationship with a man and broadcasted it over the internet. Tragically, Clementi marks the fourth gay student to commit suicide in three weeks because of anti-gay harassment from fellow students. Seth Walsh, 13, Asher Brown, 13, and Billy Lucas, 15, also took their own lives last month because fellow students bullied them in school.

The growing number of suicides reveal the “unique set of safety concerns” that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students face both in secondary school and college. According to a National Education Policy Center study released yesterday, “over 85% report being harassed because of their sexual or gender identity, and over 20% report being physically attacked.” The “highly troubling pattern of mistreatment, negative consequences” and “the dramatic failure” of educational institutions to “adequately address” LGBT students’ concerns has contributed to a suicide rate among LGBT students that is “3-4 times higher than that of their straight counterparts.”

Many states across the country are taking laudable steps to enact measures that bolster administrators’ ability to protect students who face such harassment. However, despite the evidence supporting the need, right-wing lawmakers and activists insist that anti-bullying measures are nothing more than insidious tools of the “homosexual agenda”:

– The American Family Association of Michigan has spent years decrying a proposed anti-bullying measure as “a Trojan Horse to sneak [homosexual activists'] special rights agenda into law” and to “legitimize homosexual behavior” which is “a practice scientifically proven to result in a dramatically higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness, illegal drug use, promiscuity, life-threatening disease, and premature death.” The bill “died in 2008 in the state Senate because senators could not agree” on whether to address bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity in the measure.

– In Minnesota, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer said he would not sign the anti-bullying Safe Schools For All bill because “I don’t want the government” instead of parents to be on “the front line of defense of our children.” Indeed, Emmer voted against and Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) vetoed the same bill in 2009 after the right-wing Minnesota Family Council pushed legislators to reject the bill in 2009 because it would “promote acceptance of homosexuality.”

– The right-wing Christian media ministry Focus on the Family is attacking an anti-bullying standard on the federal level. Insisting that bullying prevention is being “hijacked by activists” who are “politicizing or sexualizing the issue,” Focus on the Family’s Candi Cushman claims that the anti-bullying bill currently before Congress “cater[s] to a narrow political agenda” that “becomes a gateway for homosexuality promotion in school.” In their current back-to-school guide “equipping” parents with tools against the “sneaky” gay agenda, Cushman told parents to look out for bullying seminars, diversity lessons, and “cute little pictures of furry animals” as “red flags” signaling the “gay agenda.”

Currently, only eight of the 44 states that have laws to address bullying specifically reference bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited conduct. Sen. Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) introduced a bill in August, the Safe Schools Improvement Act, that would require any public schools receiving federal funding to develop race, sex, and gender-specific anti-bullying policies and teach harassment prevention strategies.

“These tragedies underscore the need for a federal law that comprehensively addresses bullying and harassment in schools,” Casey’s spokeswoman told ThinkProgress. In response to Focus on the Family’s charges, she noted that, along with educators, administrations, and civil rights groups, the legislation has been endorsed by the National PTA. When announcing the bill in August, Casey asserted that the harassment of a student “to the point of suicide or where he can’t function or is subject to violence” is “just wrong.” Failure to address “the horror so many kids go through every single day” amounts to “one word: betrayal.”

Yglesias

Governing Better Would Have Helped Democrats

Markos Moulitsas pushes back on claims of liberal overreach:

Assuming big Republican gains this November, the media narrative will claim Democrats overreached and governed too liberally. Yet actual progressive policies polled well and continue to poll well. If anything, it’s been failure to act on popular legislation that helped put them in this hole.

Brendan Nyhan notes that conservatives made the same claims after 2006, and that Moulitsas’ theory is unlikely:

The role of ideological positioning is often overstated in American politics — presidential elections are largely driven by the economy, and Congressional outcomes are closely related to the number of seats held by the president’s party, whether it is a midterm election, and the state of the economy. However, to the extent that ideological positioning matters, it’s unlikely that the Democrats would be helped by shifting in a more liberal direction — the public tends to move in the opposite direction of the party in power, demanding less government under Democrats and more under Republicans.

It is always worth beginning this conversation with a recognition that given where things stood in January 2009, large House losses were essentially inevitable. The Democratic majority elected in 2008 was totally unsustainable and was doomed by basic regression to the mean.

Beyond that, I think it’s worth distinguishing between first-order and second-order claims about whether being more liberal would have helped or hurt. What Democrats needed, according to the evidence, is policies that were more effective at turning the recession around. According to me, the policies that would have achieved those goals were “more liberal” than the policies that were in fact adopted. But if Paul Ryan is right and draconian spending cuts paired with a green light to polluters and the financial industry would have produced more growth, than what they needed was more conservative policies. The problem with a lot of the discussion around this issue is that people who cover politics don’t like to make judgments about disputed policy issues. But given the connection between economic performance and election outcomes, you can’t assess political strategy in slack economy without forming some view about what would cause the excess capacity to come into use.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up