Well, it appears that Republicans don't like profiling after all. At least, not when Tea Partiers are profiled by the IRS. When the targets of profiling are black or Muslim, well . . . .
Of course, the IRS should not have profiled Tea Partiers. As liberals have been saying for decades, profiling is unfair and illegal. But the level of outrage emanating from the right is pathetic, at best. Profiling is all too common, and we shouldn't get any more outraged over the IRS's profiling of Tea Partiers than we do over the profiling of blacks, Muslims and other people. Finding a conservative commentator who'd agree with this point would take longer than the IRS took to process Tea Party nonprofit applications. And that's the problem with political discourse these days. The point of view too often taken is "If it hurts me, it's bad. If it hurts people I don't like or don't care about, it's okay." Profiling is unprincipled. But so are way too many participants in today's political mosh pit.
Showing posts with label Tea Parties. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Parties. Show all posts
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
Why Republicans Are Trapped by Gerrymandering
Much of the Republican Party's power today is the result of legislative gerrymandering, the drawing of electoral districts in Rorschach test-like patterns to include majorities of reliably Republican voters. (See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-19/republicans-win-congress-as-democrats-get-most-votes.html.) Thus, the Republicans now control the House of Representatives. But their gerrymandering has also trapped them in a time warp, and they are paying the price.
After last fall's loss of the Presidential election, Republicans are trying to figure out what went wrong in a contest they could have won. One of the key conclusions seems to be that a party of, by and for old white guys doesn't have much curb appeal for America's demographically changing populace. Many leading Republican voices now call for diversification. But that won't be easy, with their feet caught in the bear trap of their own gerrymandering.
Many Republicans politicians, particularly those inclined toward tea parties, are sworn to uphold and defend, even with their cold, dead hands if necessary, values that resonate primarily with old, white guys. If they start humming Kumbaya with anyone who doesn't party with tea, they'll be run out of office by people wielding old, white pitchforks. Let's be clear: if you represent a gerrymandered Republican district, you had damn well better look, sound and act like a Republican gerrymanderer. If you start to go wobbly, expect your constituents' footprints all over your caboose the next time you run for re-election.
The fact that many Republican politicians are beholden to a very narrow constituency now limits their options. It's a major reason why compromise in Washington is so difficult. Republican leaders in Congress have very little negotiating latitude, and can't engage in the swaps and accommodations that comprise political compromises. The upcoming deadlines--expiration of the federal government's funding on March 27 and the expiration of the debt ceiling on May 19--will probably be "resolved" with short term kicks of the can down the road. The Republicans appear to be taking more of the blame for federal dysfunction than the Democrats, and they may have limited their own ability to do anything about it.
Although Democrats have some problems with gerrymandered limits, they are much more tolerant of a diversity of views within their party. As the American populace diversifies, the flexibility of the Democratic Party could become perhaps its greatest asset, even while Republicans trash talk from their gerrymandered districts.
After last fall's loss of the Presidential election, Republicans are trying to figure out what went wrong in a contest they could have won. One of the key conclusions seems to be that a party of, by and for old white guys doesn't have much curb appeal for America's demographically changing populace. Many leading Republican voices now call for diversification. But that won't be easy, with their feet caught in the bear trap of their own gerrymandering.
Many Republicans politicians, particularly those inclined toward tea parties, are sworn to uphold and defend, even with their cold, dead hands if necessary, values that resonate primarily with old, white guys. If they start humming Kumbaya with anyone who doesn't party with tea, they'll be run out of office by people wielding old, white pitchforks. Let's be clear: if you represent a gerrymandered Republican district, you had damn well better look, sound and act like a Republican gerrymanderer. If you start to go wobbly, expect your constituents' footprints all over your caboose the next time you run for re-election.
The fact that many Republican politicians are beholden to a very narrow constituency now limits their options. It's a major reason why compromise in Washington is so difficult. Republican leaders in Congress have very little negotiating latitude, and can't engage in the swaps and accommodations that comprise political compromises. The upcoming deadlines--expiration of the federal government's funding on March 27 and the expiration of the debt ceiling on May 19--will probably be "resolved" with short term kicks of the can down the road. The Republicans appear to be taking more of the blame for federal dysfunction than the Democrats, and they may have limited their own ability to do anything about it.
Although Democrats have some problems with gerrymandered limits, they are much more tolerant of a diversity of views within their party. As the American populace diversifies, the flexibility of the Democratic Party could become perhaps its greatest asset, even while Republicans trash talk from their gerrymandered districts.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Barack Obama's Lucky Breaks
Barack Obama is a lucky man. Even as the economy idles in neutral and his ratings sink, good things keep happening to him.
Lucky Dollar. Europe's debt crisis is getting worse--a Belgian bank was just nationalized, which means more liabilities for Belgian taxpayers. The dollar remains attractive and capital is flowing into high quality dollar denominated assets. Interest rates remain low but the strengthened dollar prevents a flood of capital out of the U.S.
Bad Guys Can't Hide. U.S. counterinsurgency forces have successfully dealt with bin Laden and Awlaki. Although this is mostly the result of patient, painstaking intelligence work, there's an element of luck in these successes and Obama has been very lucky in the war against terrorism.
Occupy Wall Street. This largely spontaneous protest movement provides the Democrats with an opportunity to organize a counterweight to the Tea Party. In his typically cautious style, Obama waited three weeks before speaking favorably of the Occupiers. The protests give him an opportunity. He's lost most of the popular groundswell that got him elected in 2008, and Occupy Wall Street let's him recover some of his losses. Not all Occupiers like Obama. But not all Tea Partiers like the Republicans and that didn't prevent the Republicans from co-opting the Tea Party movement.
Stock Market Loves Big Government. Ignore what Wall Street says and watch what it does. Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied some 330 points on vague promises by France and Germany to do something or other to support their banks. Also heartening for stocks was Belgium's nationalization of a sovereign debt-laden bank, Dexia and, Belgium's, France's and Luxembourg's guarantees of some 90 billion Euros of Dexia's future borrowings (which presumably would be used to pay existing creditors off). In other words, losses that would have fallen on financial market participants will now fall on European taxpayers. If you're a banker, you gotta love that. Since Obama's principal policy options at this point are one variant of big government or another, he's lucky to have a stock market that will cheer his every policy success.
Lucky Dollar. Europe's debt crisis is getting worse--a Belgian bank was just nationalized, which means more liabilities for Belgian taxpayers. The dollar remains attractive and capital is flowing into high quality dollar denominated assets. Interest rates remain low but the strengthened dollar prevents a flood of capital out of the U.S.
Bad Guys Can't Hide. U.S. counterinsurgency forces have successfully dealt with bin Laden and Awlaki. Although this is mostly the result of patient, painstaking intelligence work, there's an element of luck in these successes and Obama has been very lucky in the war against terrorism.
Occupy Wall Street. This largely spontaneous protest movement provides the Democrats with an opportunity to organize a counterweight to the Tea Party. In his typically cautious style, Obama waited three weeks before speaking favorably of the Occupiers. The protests give him an opportunity. He's lost most of the popular groundswell that got him elected in 2008, and Occupy Wall Street let's him recover some of his losses. Not all Occupiers like Obama. But not all Tea Partiers like the Republicans and that didn't prevent the Republicans from co-opting the Tea Party movement.
Stock Market Loves Big Government. Ignore what Wall Street says and watch what it does. Today, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rallied some 330 points on vague promises by France and Germany to do something or other to support their banks. Also heartening for stocks was Belgium's nationalization of a sovereign debt-laden bank, Dexia and, Belgium's, France's and Luxembourg's guarantees of some 90 billion Euros of Dexia's future borrowings (which presumably would be used to pay existing creditors off). In other words, losses that would have fallen on financial market participants will now fall on European taxpayers. If you're a banker, you gotta love that. Since Obama's principal policy options at this point are one variant of big government or another, he's lucky to have a stock market that will cheer his every policy success.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
The Weird and Unknown From the U.S. Credit Rating Downgrade
We learned in a big way during the 2008 financial crisis that what we don't know can really hurt us. That would still be true today, after S&P lowered America's credit rating from AAA to AA+. We also know that weird stuff happens when the financial markets get a tummy ache. They seem likely to be queasy from the downgrade when the markets open tomorrow. The weird and unknown may surface soon.
Complex Trading. Major banks and hedge funds frequently trade esoteric investments in multi-investment positions involving U.S. Treasuries as hedges or otherwise. Quite often, these market players embrace leverage in playing this game, since it boosts potential profits. The downgrade shouldn't have come as a complete surprise, since the rating agencies have been loudly frowning at the U.S. debt situation for several months now. But the downgrade's timing was uncertain and its impact uncertain. Complex trading positions may become unhinged for unanticipated reasons. These large institutional traders may find their positions exposed, or may receive unexpected demands for collateral from brokers or counterparties, and then struggle to keep things on an even keel. If so, that could prove unsettling for the markets, especially if the exposures from such trading are directly or indirectly concentrated in one or two companies, a la AIG circa 2008. The reform of the derivatives market has proceeded slowly, if at all, and regulators likely have no idea if there exists the potential for another meltdown. So all we can do is wait and see what happens. If there is another AIG lurking out there, expect very bad consequences.
Housing Market Hassles. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide almost all the financing in the residential real estate markets, primarily because their debts are effectively 100% guaranteed by the U.S. government. It's logical to expect that Fannie and Freddie will be downgraded, since their sugar daddy was just downgraded. This could make mortgage loans harder to get. Not necessarily because interest rates would rise, because the U.S. Treasury downgrade could trigger a flight to safety that ironically would increase demand for U.S. Treasuries (there being few alternatives). But a Fan/Fred downgrade would make it harder to find investors for the mortgage backed securities that Fan/Fred backed loans go into. Investors in those securities are the true source of liquidity for the mortgage market, and may demand higher quality borrowers than current already stringent credit standards require. The housing market could slip on yet another banana peel in its path.
Chinese Communists Strengthened. China's Communist government has been coming under increasing domestic political pressure, because of rising unemployment, poor protection of consumers, sporadic protection of the environment, corruption and co-optation by China's capitalist plutocracy. The S&P downgrade of U.S. Treasuries, however, highlights the fundamental strength of the Chinese economy and its levitating currency, the yuan. That makes the Communist government look good, at a time when it needed some positive spin. Of course, S&P wasn't trying to influence internal Chinese politics. But the law of unintended consequences is the supreme authority in the world of finance.
Obama-Boehner in 2012? Increased factionalism in both political parties is stretching current party delineations close to the breaking point. The Republican Party is held hostage by a limited number of Tea Party ideologues. Respected mainstream conservative voices have labeled Tea Partiers "hobbits, " which, albeit an affront to hobbits, captures the fantastical quality of the thinking on the far right. At the same time, the fissure between President Obama and liberal Democrats has been outed. Emotions are red hot. Ralph Nader publicly, and likely others nonpublicly, predict a primaries challenge to President Obama next year. No one is naming names yet. The most obvious challenger, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has publicly said she isn't running for elective office again. Neither a liberal left agenda, nor a Tea Party-style conservative platform, will win the White House in 2012. Both Obama and Boehner know that. Their problems with their parties will increase, because the debt ceiling deal creates a bipartisan committee to squabble more about deficit reduction, giving all factions many opportunities for further raucousness. With so many shouting past each other instead of having a dialogue, the conditions for a realignment of parties are ripening. It's impossible that Obama and Boehner would actually team up to run in 2012. But the pressures for a functioning U.S. government come from powerful forces in the financial markets and the economy. We're no longer debating political philosophy or ideology over beer and pretzels or coffee and Danish. Lots of jobs, careers, wealth, and retirements are on the line. The will of the people is for a functioning government, and ambitious politicians will find a way to give them one. Current party alignments may be endangered.
Complex Trading. Major banks and hedge funds frequently trade esoteric investments in multi-investment positions involving U.S. Treasuries as hedges or otherwise. Quite often, these market players embrace leverage in playing this game, since it boosts potential profits. The downgrade shouldn't have come as a complete surprise, since the rating agencies have been loudly frowning at the U.S. debt situation for several months now. But the downgrade's timing was uncertain and its impact uncertain. Complex trading positions may become unhinged for unanticipated reasons. These large institutional traders may find their positions exposed, or may receive unexpected demands for collateral from brokers or counterparties, and then struggle to keep things on an even keel. If so, that could prove unsettling for the markets, especially if the exposures from such trading are directly or indirectly concentrated in one or two companies, a la AIG circa 2008. The reform of the derivatives market has proceeded slowly, if at all, and regulators likely have no idea if there exists the potential for another meltdown. So all we can do is wait and see what happens. If there is another AIG lurking out there, expect very bad consequences.
Housing Market Hassles. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide almost all the financing in the residential real estate markets, primarily because their debts are effectively 100% guaranteed by the U.S. government. It's logical to expect that Fannie and Freddie will be downgraded, since their sugar daddy was just downgraded. This could make mortgage loans harder to get. Not necessarily because interest rates would rise, because the U.S. Treasury downgrade could trigger a flight to safety that ironically would increase demand for U.S. Treasuries (there being few alternatives). But a Fan/Fred downgrade would make it harder to find investors for the mortgage backed securities that Fan/Fred backed loans go into. Investors in those securities are the true source of liquidity for the mortgage market, and may demand higher quality borrowers than current already stringent credit standards require. The housing market could slip on yet another banana peel in its path.
Chinese Communists Strengthened. China's Communist government has been coming under increasing domestic political pressure, because of rising unemployment, poor protection of consumers, sporadic protection of the environment, corruption and co-optation by China's capitalist plutocracy. The S&P downgrade of U.S. Treasuries, however, highlights the fundamental strength of the Chinese economy and its levitating currency, the yuan. That makes the Communist government look good, at a time when it needed some positive spin. Of course, S&P wasn't trying to influence internal Chinese politics. But the law of unintended consequences is the supreme authority in the world of finance.
Obama-Boehner in 2012? Increased factionalism in both political parties is stretching current party delineations close to the breaking point. The Republican Party is held hostage by a limited number of Tea Party ideologues. Respected mainstream conservative voices have labeled Tea Partiers "hobbits, " which, albeit an affront to hobbits, captures the fantastical quality of the thinking on the far right. At the same time, the fissure between President Obama and liberal Democrats has been outed. Emotions are red hot. Ralph Nader publicly, and likely others nonpublicly, predict a primaries challenge to President Obama next year. No one is naming names yet. The most obvious challenger, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has publicly said she isn't running for elective office again. Neither a liberal left agenda, nor a Tea Party-style conservative platform, will win the White House in 2012. Both Obama and Boehner know that. Their problems with their parties will increase, because the debt ceiling deal creates a bipartisan committee to squabble more about deficit reduction, giving all factions many opportunities for further raucousness. With so many shouting past each other instead of having a dialogue, the conditions for a realignment of parties are ripening. It's impossible that Obama and Boehner would actually team up to run in 2012. But the pressures for a functioning U.S. government come from powerful forces in the financial markets and the economy. We're no longer debating political philosophy or ideology over beer and pretzels or coffee and Danish. Lots of jobs, careers, wealth, and retirements are on the line. The will of the people is for a functioning government, and ambitious politicians will find a way to give them one. Current party alignments may be endangered.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Republican Losses in the Primaries
More than is generally recognized, the Republicans may have been the biggest losers recently. Their mainstream candidates have had a rough time. Senator Robert Bennett of Utah was ousted at a GOP state convention, in favor of a Tea Party candidate. In Kentucky, the choice of the state GOP establishment was beaten in a primary by Tea Partier Rand Paul. Arlen Specter, a former Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, felt so uncertain about his re-election prospects in a Republican primary that he switched to the Democratic Party, but then lost to an upstart Democratic Congressman, Joe Sestak.
It seems that mainstream Republicans are an endangered species. Mitt Romney, a frequent leader in the early polling for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, endorsed the losing Bob Bennett. He must be furiously re-working his candidacy, perhaps to include a well-televised caribou hunt in Alaska.
The Democrats have their share of problems with upstarts. A longstanding Congressman from West Virginia, Alan Mollohan, was defeated in a primary by a state senator. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas will face Arkansas' lieutenant governor, Bill Halter, in a runoff. But the Dems also won a special election in Pennsylvania to replace the late John Murtha. Democrat Mark Critz beat Tea Partier Tim Burns.
Political insurgencies today aren't always about one party versus the other. They're often about newcomers challenging incumbents. And the challengers that win tend to be the more extreme. That's what is surely giving the GOP establishment nightmares. Presidential elections are decided by winning over moderate voters. Extremists may take control of parties. But they don't win Presidential elections.
Lyndon Johnson, may he rest in peace, must be smiling now. He was elected in 1964 by a landslide when the Republican nomination was seized by Barry Goldwater's insurgency. Goldwater, may he rest in peace, mellowed as he grew older and is probably frowning now. Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2012 Presidential election, and he'll have a good chance for a second term if extremists succeed in their efforts to take over the Republican Party.
It seems that mainstream Republicans are an endangered species. Mitt Romney, a frequent leader in the early polling for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination, endorsed the losing Bob Bennett. He must be furiously re-working his candidacy, perhaps to include a well-televised caribou hunt in Alaska.
The Democrats have their share of problems with upstarts. A longstanding Congressman from West Virginia, Alan Mollohan, was defeated in a primary by a state senator. Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas will face Arkansas' lieutenant governor, Bill Halter, in a runoff. But the Dems also won a special election in Pennsylvania to replace the late John Murtha. Democrat Mark Critz beat Tea Partier Tim Burns.
Political insurgencies today aren't always about one party versus the other. They're often about newcomers challenging incumbents. And the challengers that win tend to be the more extreme. That's what is surely giving the GOP establishment nightmares. Presidential elections are decided by winning over moderate voters. Extremists may take control of parties. But they don't win Presidential elections.
Lyndon Johnson, may he rest in peace, must be smiling now. He was elected in 1964 by a landslide when the Republican nomination was seized by Barry Goldwater's insurgency. Goldwater, may he rest in peace, mellowed as he grew older and is probably frowning now. Barack Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for the 2012 Presidential election, and he'll have a good chance for a second term if extremists succeed in their efforts to take over the Republican Party.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
How the Tea Parties Are Helping the Democrats
With the Tea Parties surging as the loudest manifestation of populist outrage, many Republicans are crowing and a few have already proclaimed victory in the fall 2010 Congressional elections. Tea Partiers are trying to organize on a national level, although the very attempt to organize is exposing schisms among them. Republican power brokers, struggling with demands for ideological purity, blanch at the thought of the partying hordes. The worst case scenario for them is the possibility of a takeover by a heresy-hunting rabble that marginalizes the party. In the smoothly disciplined corporate world of mainstream Republicanism, the rank and file are supposed to provide votes and funding, not ideas and commentary.
Unnoticed amidst the shouting and spouting is how the Democrats have moved quickly to strengthen their positions. President Obama is ramping up troop levels in Afghanistan, seeking to justify war even as he receives the Nobel Peace Prize. He's much more cautious than a year ago about what to do with the inmates at Guantanamo. By all indications, he's got nary a peep about the rapidly disappearing public health insurance option. His Wall Street centric economics policy team has suddenly discovered the joys of helping small business and creating jobs.
Congress, too, is trying to get right with the electorate. A turbocharged push on health care reform has resulted in serious action; a bill will probably reach the President well before the 2010 elections. As popular anger at Wall Street has mounted, financial regulatory reform was approved this past week by the House. The big banks are p.o.'d, something that will play well on Main Street.
A crucial factor in today's political mosh pit is that the Democrats control the White House and both chambers of the legislature. Unusually, they can muster 60 votes in the Senate and overcome Republican attempts to filibuster. Thus, the rarest of all circumstances exists in Washington: a government that can actually get things done. And it is.
President Obama and Congress are shifting back toward the middle, accommodating the independents who put them in power. The President's Afghanistan strategy is particularly revealing. By authorizing more troops, he undermines the charge of being soft on terrorism. He has persuaded America's allies to furnish about 20% of the additional troops, thus avoiding the international irritation of W's go-it-alone policies. The 18-month time frame for beginning withdrawals conveniently falls after the fall 2010 elections, so voters won't feel as if they are voting for or against the war. Hopefully, the President's Afghanistan policy will produce something approaching a victory in the war. It is clearly designed to help win the 2010 elections.
Dismayed liberals in the Democratic Party have a lot to say, but not that much they can do. Indeed, their complaints complete the portrait of a President and Congress for the broad electorate.
Some Democrat losses in the Congressional elections of 2010 wouldn't be surprising. The dominant party always loses something in mid-term elections. But Republican proclamations of triumph are premature. If the President and Congress retake the political middle, the Democrats will be able to sit back and watch as the Savonarolas of the right burn their fires hotter and hotter.
Unnoticed amidst the shouting and spouting is how the Democrats have moved quickly to strengthen their positions. President Obama is ramping up troop levels in Afghanistan, seeking to justify war even as he receives the Nobel Peace Prize. He's much more cautious than a year ago about what to do with the inmates at Guantanamo. By all indications, he's got nary a peep about the rapidly disappearing public health insurance option. His Wall Street centric economics policy team has suddenly discovered the joys of helping small business and creating jobs.
Congress, too, is trying to get right with the electorate. A turbocharged push on health care reform has resulted in serious action; a bill will probably reach the President well before the 2010 elections. As popular anger at Wall Street has mounted, financial regulatory reform was approved this past week by the House. The big banks are p.o.'d, something that will play well on Main Street.
A crucial factor in today's political mosh pit is that the Democrats control the White House and both chambers of the legislature. Unusually, they can muster 60 votes in the Senate and overcome Republican attempts to filibuster. Thus, the rarest of all circumstances exists in Washington: a government that can actually get things done. And it is.
President Obama and Congress are shifting back toward the middle, accommodating the independents who put them in power. The President's Afghanistan strategy is particularly revealing. By authorizing more troops, he undermines the charge of being soft on terrorism. He has persuaded America's allies to furnish about 20% of the additional troops, thus avoiding the international irritation of W's go-it-alone policies. The 18-month time frame for beginning withdrawals conveniently falls after the fall 2010 elections, so voters won't feel as if they are voting for or against the war. Hopefully, the President's Afghanistan policy will produce something approaching a victory in the war. It is clearly designed to help win the 2010 elections.
Dismayed liberals in the Democratic Party have a lot to say, but not that much they can do. Indeed, their complaints complete the portrait of a President and Congress for the broad electorate.
Some Democrat losses in the Congressional elections of 2010 wouldn't be surprising. The dominant party always loses something in mid-term elections. But Republican proclamations of triumph are premature. If the President and Congress retake the political middle, the Democrats will be able to sit back and watch as the Savonarolas of the right burn their fires hotter and hotter.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
