“Empathy For The Devil”: Mark Sanford Proudly Champions The Most Self-Righteous Instincts Of His Privileged Class
At New York Magazine, Jason Zengerle’s got a long article on Mark Sanford’s fall and rise, focusing on his very touchy relationship with his ex-wife Jenny, who could have easily preempted his comeback congressional campaign with one of her own, and could sink his today with a few tart words.
Reading the piece, I couldn’t help but marvel at what a relatively easy time Sanford has had recovering from such a spectacular implosion, spending his post-gubernatorial days “almost Thoreau-ing” on his family’s plantation, building a cottage to house his political memoranda, mulling life in the big picture and occasionally jetting off to New York or Miami or Buenos Aires to spend time with his lover (and eventually fiancee). If Sanford hit bottom or struggled through a Dark Night of the Soul, it was in considerable comfort. Nor did his first steps back involve community service or anything selfless at all:
After a year and a half, he left Coosaw [the plantation] and moved to an apartment in Charleston. He did some commercial-real-estate deals and joined a couple of corporate boards. He popped up on Fox News to offer some political analysis. Then last summer, he took the plunge and traveled to Tampa for the Republican National Convention.
But here’s the most revealing part of the story:
Empathy is a dominant theme of Sanford’s campaign, and it came up in my own conversations with him. “I would argue, and again I’m not recommending the curriculum to my worst enemy, but if one fails publicly at something, there’s a new level of empathy toward others that could not have been there before,” he told me.
When I asked Sanford how that new empathy had changed his views on public policy—whether it had made him, for instance, more inclined to support public-assistance programs he’s long denounced as unnecessary—he said it had not. “Convictions are convictions,” he explained. His empathy is for other public figures recovering from sex scandals and personal humiliations. “I used to open the paper and think, How did this person do that? Now it’s all, But by the grace of God go I.”
Unbelievable. Here’s this man who grew up on a plantation and married an heiress, and then presided over a state that is a living monument to inequality, proudly championing the most churlish and self-righteous instincts of its privileged classes. But his new empathy still extends no further than people just like him. And odds are he’s going to go back to Congress, where I suspect he will declare his rehabilitation complete.
By: Ed Kilgore, Contributing Writer, Washington Monthly Political Animal, March 4, 2013
“And The Beat Goes On”: Is Jeb Bush Trying To Scuttle Immigration Reform?
In what appears to be a remarkable about-face, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush on Monday stepped back from his previous position on immigration reform, telling NBC’s Today that he does not support a path to citizenship for immigrants who entered the country illegally. “I think there has to be some difference between people who come here legally and illegally,” Bush said. “It is just a matter of common sense and a matter of the rule of law. If we’re not going to apply the law fairly and consistently, we’re going to have another wave of illegal immigrants coming into the country.”
Bush is even more explicit in a forthcoming book called Immigration Wars: Forging an American Solution that he co-authored with lawyer Clint Bolick. According to Elise Foley at The Huffington Post, who nabbed a copy of the book before its official publication date, Bush and Bolick write, “It is absolutely vital to the integrity of our immigration system that actions have consequences — in this case, that those who violated the law can remain but cannot obtain the cherished fruits of citizenship.” They continue: “To do otherwise would signal once again that people who circumvent the system can still obtain the full benefits of American citizenship.”
Technically, Bush says he does support a path to citizenship, but only if undocumented immigrants return to their home countries and apply through legal channels. That is miles away from his previous stance on the issue. As recently as January, Bush and Book wrote the following in an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal (emphasis added):
A practicable system of work-based immigration for both high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants — a system that will include a path to citizenship — will help us meet workforce needs, prevent exportation of jobs to foreign countries and protect against the exploitation of workers…
America’s immigration system should provide opportunities for people who share the country’s core values to become citizens, thereby strengthening the nation as have countless immigrants have before them. [The Wall Street Journal]
In addition, Bush spent much of the 2012 presidential campaign criticizing Republicans — and by implication, standard-bearer Mitt Romney — for taking a hard-line stance on immigration. Bush’s new position has angered at least one member of the Romney campaign, according to The Miami Herald:
“Where the hell was this Jeb Bush during the campaign?” said one advisor. “He spent all this time criticizing Romney and it turns out he has basically the same position. So he wants people to go back to their country and apply for citizenship? Well, that’s self deportation. We got creamed for talking about that. And now Jeb is saying the same thing.”
Asked to respond, Bush said by email: “I am not advocating self deportation. Read the book.” [The Miami Herald]
What is the former Florida governor hoping to accomplish? There was immediate speculation that Bush, who is considered a possible presidential contender in 2016, is seeking to place himself to the right of Sen. Marco Rubio, a fellow Floridian who is leading a bipartisan effort to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would likely include a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers. When asked by NBC whether he was running for president, Bush left the door wide open. “I have a voice,” he said. “I want to share my beliefs about how the conservative movement and the Republican Party can regain its footing, because we’ve lost our way.” When pressed, he refused to rule out a run. “I won’t,” he said, “but I’m not going to declare today either.”
Others say that Bush’s shift reflects the stubborn fact that the GOP is not serious about comprehensive reform, despite Rubio’s efforts and the appeals of party leaders (one of whom used to be Bush himself). “If I had to hazard a guess,” writes Jamelle Bouie at The American Prospect, “this is another sign Republicans are moving away from comprehensive immigration reform, and towards something more piecemeal and less effective.”
And where does that leave Rubio’s proposal? According to Benjy Sarlin at Talking Points Memo:
“Wow,” Marshall Fitz, director of immigration policy at the liberal Center For American Progress, told TPM in an email. “For a guy who has been a luminary on this issue for the GOP, his endorsement of such a regressive policy is deeply troubling.”
The big question going forward, Fitz said, is “whether it cuts Rubio’s legs out from under him” by pressuring his right flank, or merely gives Rubio more power within the bipartisan gang negotiating a bill by demonstrating that conservative concerns about a bill are still a major hurdle that only he can address. [Talking Points Memo]
By: Ryu Spaeth, The Week, March 4, 2013
“Boosting Their Bottom Line”: The Koch Brothers Revel In The Sequester
Although everyone from President Barack Obama to House Speaker John Boehner has lamented the negative impact of the $85 billion budget sequestration, at least two major Washington figures are thrilled about the severe cuts. For Charles and David Koch, the sequester accomplishes the goal that motivated the billionaire brothers to help launch the Tea Party movement in 2010: weakening the federal government. And now that the cuts have begun to take effect, the Koch brothers are reveling in their success.
Americans for Prosperity, the right-wing dark money group founded by the Koch brothers in 2004, sent out an email to supporters over the weekend claiming credit for sequestration. The email, from AFP President Tim Phillips, claims, “While Speaker Boehner and the GOP deserve credit and thanks for taking a gutsy stand, it’s important to realize what an incredible impact AFP activists like you” have had in convincing Congress to slash the federal budget across the board.
“These combined efforts helped spread a message across the country that enabled House Republicans to take heart and do the right thing knowing that conservatives had their back,” Phillips continues. His full letter, which also brags that USA Today “recognized the effectiveness of AFP activists and gave us the opportunity to articulate the importance of sequester cuts,” can be read here.
The Koch brothers are also taking to the airwaves to keep up the pressure for even more cuts. Public Notice, to which Charles and David Koch donated $8 million between 2009 and 2011, released a new ad Tuesday minimizing the impact of the sequester — and encouraging the government to make even deeper cuts.
“President Obama calls sequestration a ‘meat cleaver’ that will ‘eviscerate’ government services,” the ad’s narrator ominously charges. “What is sequestration? A three-percent cut in government spending. Three cents out of every dollar the government spends. We’re more than $16 trillion in debt, and the government wastes billions each year on duplicate programs.”
“Americans have made tough choices and cut back. Washington refuses,” the ad concludes. “Call Washington and ask them why it’s so hard to cut spending.”
The ad — which ignores the fact that government spending under President Barack Obama has grown at a slower rate than it did under any president since Dwight Eisenhower was president in the 1950s — will reportedly run until March 15.
Charles and David Koch’s enthusiasm for the sequester isn’t hard to understand. Although the cuts will have a devastating effect on society’s most vulnerable, they will likely boost Koch Industries’ bottom line. The budget sequester is expected to hamstring the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory efforts, and Energy Secretary Stephen Chu has warned that “under sequestration, funding reductions would decelerate the nation’s transition into a clean energy economy.” Both outcomes would seem to be very good news for the oil billionaires.
By: Henry Decker, The National Memo, March 5, 2013
“Low Information Republicans”: What We Have Here Is More Than A Failure To Communicate
One of the more common areas of discussion among political professionals is the phenomenon of low-information voters. These are folks who care about the country and its future, but choose not to keep up on current events, due to some combination of feeling busy, apathetic, and frustrated. Political pros find these Americans difficult to reach — and at times, easy to manipulate — precisely because they’re disengaged and far behind the curve.
The point isn’t that low-information voters are dumb, but rather, that they’re ignorant. In focus groups, you’ll hear these same folks express poorly thought out opinions based on vague “something I heard on the news” observations.
But what happens when we move past low-information voters and start looking at low-information politicians? Ezra Klein relayed an incredible exchange from last week about the ongoing fiscal debate in Washington.
Would it matter, one reporter asked the veteran legislator, if the president were to put chained-CPI — a policy that reconfigures the way the government measures inflation and thus slows the growth of Social Security benefits — on the table?
“Absolutely,” the legislator said. “That’s serious.”
Another reporter jumped in. “But it is on the table! They tell us three times a day that they want to do chained-CPI.”
“Who wants to do it?” said the legislator.
“The president,” replied the reporter.
“I’d love to see it,” laughed the legislator.
In other words, an elected member of Congress — a “veteran legislator,” not some freshman who’s only been in office a couple of months — wants to see President Obama endorse a “serious” policy like chained-CPI as part of a larger debt-reduction package, but the lawmaker has absolutely no idea that Obama has already endorsed chained-CPI as part of a larger debt-reduction package. Indeed, in this case, the Republican lawmaker was so incredulous, he or she laughed at reality, as if it couldn’t possibly be true.
So, is it fair to say Washington debates would be less ridiculous if low-information Republican lawmakers were simply brought up to speed on the basics? Would compromise be easier if GOP officials had some clue as to what President Obama is, in reality, offering?
Well, no, probably not.
Jon Chait reminds us of the classic Upton Sinclair line: “It is impossible to make a man understand something if his livelihood depends on not understanding it.”
As this is applied to the ongoing political debates in DC, Republicans seem ignorant to a jaw-dropping degree about some of the basics, but even if they suddenly became more informed, it’s likely they’d come up with new reasons not to govern constructively with the White House.
Indeed, we don’t have to speculate to know this is true. Over the weekend, Ezra highlighted concerns raised by Mike Murphy, one of the top political consultants in the Republican Party, who said President Obama could reach a bipartisan deal with Republicans if only he endorsed chained CPI, apparently unaware that Obama has already done this.
Reminded of the facts, Murphy dug in, saying Obama endorsed means testing, but “refused” chained CPI. This is factually incorrect, too — indeed, it’s the exact opposite of reality — and when this was brought to his attention, Murphy switched gears, saying chained CPI is a “small beans gimmick” and Republicans just aren’t able to “trust” the White House.
Keep in mind, Murphy’s no dummy, but his line of argument is literally incoherent. He wants Obama to endorse a policy. Told that Obama already endorsed that policy, Murphy denies it. Presented with proof, Murphy decides the policy he supports isn’t so great after all.
So what does Murphy recommend? That Obama “earn trust” with Republicans by “first” agreeing to spending cuts. But in our reality, Obama already embraced about $1.5 trillion in spending cuts in 2011, with no accompanying revenue. In other words, Murphy believes the way out of the current mess is for the president to give Republicans 100% of what they want, accepting another cuts-only package.
Ezra’s bottom line rings true: Republicans have effectively eliminated the possibility of compromise, since they “just want to get the White House to implement their agenda in return for nothing.”
By: Steve Benen, The Maddow Blog, March 4, 2013
“Morning Joe’s Accuracy Deficit”: If It’s Way Too Early, It’s Just Flat Out Wrong
We’ve all played the game “telephone,” where a message gets distorted in the retelling, often so much so that the original sender has a hard time recognizing it when it comes back. Nowadays, “telephone” is played in the blogosphere, and that’s how I felt when I first learned that my views on reducing the federal budget deficit were portrayed as in sharp contrast to those of my famous Princeton colleague, Paul Krugman.
The story began when Krugman appeared as a guest on “Morning Joe” on January 28th. He locked horns with host Joe Scarborough and others over how urgent it is to reduce the deficit, with Krugman arguing that we have lots of time and Scarborough (and others) arguing that we need to act post haste. Krugman did not dispute the notion that we must eventually get ourselves off the explosive debt path on which we now find ourselves. But he insisted that, with the economy so weak and the markets so welcoming of U.S. Treasury debt, we can and should go slowly.
Scarborough, though cordial to his guest, was incredulous and even amused. He subsequently argued in POLITICO that Krugman’s view is extreme, dangerous, and — most germane to this note — shared by almost no one else. It certainly wasn’t the consensus view on “Morning Joe” that day.
When Scarborough speaks, people listen. So controversy quickly erupted in the blogosphere. In POLITICO on February 15th, Scarborough invoked me as being on his side of the debate — which was news to me. While there are nuances of difference between my views on the budget issue and Krugman’s, and notable differences in rhetorical style, our positions are broadly similar. I’m probably a tad more hawkish than my colleague, but there’s not much distance showing between us.
So why had Scarborough declared me a deficit hawk?, I wondered when someone informed me of the alleged schism within the Princeton economics department. Here’s the answer.
In my new book, “After the Music Stopped” (Penguin Press, 2013), which was published a few days before the Scarborough-Krugman debate, I argued that there is not just one, but actually three distinct deficit problems, each with its own solution.
PROBLEM 1: In the very short run, meaning right now, we probably have too much deficit reduction. The U.S. economy could actually use some fiscal stimulus (to wit, larger deficits) today, rather than more fiscal contraction, because unemployment is still so high. Doesn’t that sound like Krugman?
PROBLEM 2: Over the coming decade, however — which is the focus of Simpson-Bowles, the so-called grand bargain, and most other plans — we do need to bring the deficit down, I argued. And, indeed, Problems 1 and 2 should be linked: by joining together some modest stimulus now with perhaps ten times as much deficit reduction over the ten-year budget window. In Washington-speak, we would thus “pay for” the stimulus ten times over. Furthermore, I argued, we could accomplish that without undue pain and suffering.
PROBLEM 3: The real budget crunch comes well down the line — a decade or two or three from now. The problem is simple to diagnose — healthcare costs are projected to soar — and it looks massive. By the way, that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t start addressing the healthcare cost problem now.
An excerpt from my book, making these points, was published in The Atlantic on January 25th — three days before the “Morning Joe” show. Interestingly, The Atlantic entitled the excerpt: “How to Worry About the Deficit: (1) Don’t; (2) Wait a Few Years; (3) Then Worry About Healthcare Costs.” A bit long as headlines go, and maybe a bit misleading, but it did capture the three separate deficit issues.
Apparently the article caught Scarborough’s eye. In that POLITICO article, he cited me as among the anti-Krugmans, claiming I was “particularly supportive of the “Morning Joe” panel’s view.” Why? Because I had warned of “truly horrific problems” ahead and “even shared [the] conclusion that the coming Medicare crisis will be so great that Democrats won’t be able to tax their way out of it.”
Well, I did say those things, but they referred to Problem 3, the long-run explosion of healthcare costs, not to Problem 2, the ten-year budget. Here’s the actual quotation about taxing our way out of the exploding healthcare costs (from “After the Music Stopped,” p. 404):
“The government can cover no more than a small fraction of the projected deficits by raising taxes. Sorry, Democrats, but the Republicans are right on this one. Americans are used to federal taxes running about 18.5 percent of GDP; they will not allow them to rise to 32 percent of GDP. Never mind that a number of European countries do so; we won’t.”
Krugman subsequently noted in his blog (on February 16) that his position is “not so different” from mine.
I don’t blog, so the purpose of this missive is simple: Can we please end the mini-debate right here? While there may be some small differences between Krugman’s position on reducing the deficit and my own, they are pretty small. Had I been on “Morning Joe” that day, the debate surely would have been two against four, not one against four. Furthermore, Krugman and I are not occupying some obscure corner of the policy debate, where only weirdos live. A large number of economists are on our side. Others, of course, are closer to the Scarborough camp.
The more important question is the substantive issue of the day: Should we be going for more fiscal austerity right now, or not? Those of us who say “not” urge you to consider some pertinent facts: the unemployment rate remains sky high; fiscal austerity has failed in Europe, where it is harming growth; the U.S. Treasury can still borrow at super-low interest rates; and we have already made serious progress on the ten-year budget problem. Now make up your own minds.
By: Alan S. Blinder, Opinion Contributor; Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Princeton; Former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Politico, March 4, 2013
Share This Blog
Unknown Feed- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
mykeystrokes.com 