Bill Keller alerts us, “Be warned: political science is an inexact science, if not an outright oxymoron,” before he engages us with his own version of political science. He should have heeded his own advice. If I can encapsulate Keller’s science in a sentence, it is this: “no one loves a moderate, but the voters who will decide the presidential election are clamoring for a moderate.”
And, just coincidentally, a moderate is someone who agrees with Mark Penn and Doug Schoen about everything.
¶Swing voters tend to be fiscal conservatives, meaning they are profoundly worried about deficits and debt.
¶They are mostly economic moderates, meaning they are free-marketers but expect government to help provide the physical and intellectual infrastructure that creates opportunity.
¶They are aspirational — that is, they have nothing against the rich — but they don’t oppose tax increases.
¶They want the country well protected, but not throwing its weight around in the world.
¶They tend to be fairly progressive on social issues; they think, for example, that abortion should be discouraged but not prohibited.
Why did Bill Keller write this article? The answer is obvious. He wrote it to tsk-tsk the president for showing signs of economic populism. I know this because I read Keller’s conclusion:
In the Democratic Party, a battle for Obama’s teleprompter is now under way between the moderates and the more orthodox left. The president sometimes, as in his last two State of the Union addresses, plays the even-keel, presidential pragmatist, sounding themes of balance and opportunity. Then sometimes lately he sounds more as if he’s trying out for the role of Robin Hood.
The problem isn’t that the Buffett Rule is necessarily a bad idea. It isn’t that “social Darwinism” is a slander on Republicans. (Heck, it may be the only Darwinism Romney believes in.) The problem is that when Obama thrusts these populist themes to the center of his narrative, he sounds a little desperate. The candidate who ran on hope — promising to transcend bickering and get things done — is in danger of sounding like the candidate of partisan insurgency. Just as Romney was unconvincing as a right-wing scourge, Obama, a man lofty in his visions but realistic in his governance, feels inauthentic playing a plutocrat-bashing firebrand. The role the middle really wants him to play, I think, is president.
This nugget of conventional wisdom has it all. He makes depressingly stupid digs at Obama for using a teleprompter and Romney for not believing in evolution. See? He can echo the dumbest of dumb critiques from both sides of the aisle!
There’s nothing wrong with the Buffett Rule except that it seems inauthentic, desperate, and unfriendly to plutocrats to talk about it.
Romney, of course, gets a complete pass for everything he said during the primaries that might bite him in the ass in the general because he “was unconvincing as a right-wing scourge.” In other words, Mr. Keller will shake up the Etch A Sketch so Romney doesn’t have to.
What the president really needs to do is to drop all this talk about taxing rich people and cater his every word to the poll-tested-to-death wisdom of the Third Way. As if the Third Way isn’t sophisticated enough to know to ask questions in such a way as to find the answers it seeks.
This is very stupid material. The Republican Party isn’t just a little out of the mainstream right now. This isn’t a choice between a make-believe moderate version of Mitt Romney and some far left governing majority. It’s a choice between America as we have all grown up to know it, and some dystopia that can be seen playing out in states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Arizona, Oklahoma, Mississippi, and Florida.
Interjecting the self-serving polling of Third Way into the conversation is beyond impertinent. If we were to start this out as a race with the Dems taking the positions of Clinton and the Republicans taking the positions of Dole, and we ran the tape forward, the rightward line would veer off the page while the leftward line would remain nearly constant. While Obama is instinctively a notch or two to the left of Clinton, the realities of Washington make it impossible for him to govern more than a notch and a half to Clinton’s left.
While the right is questioning his religious beliefs and citizenship, Obama is just trying to pay our bills.
A lot of people on the left have been delusional over the last four years, but at least they believed in something. Bill Keller believes in nothing beyond keeping his tax rates low.
Why do people read Andrew Sullivan? This is one thing I don’t think I will ever understand.
Let me take a crack at that.
Most of his audience, at least according to surveys he’s done, is liberal. Among most conservatives he’s an apostate. I think he satisfies a craving of a certain type of liberal to be reassured that there are still self-identified conservatives who they can agree with on some things, and have reasonable arguments with on others.
Also, too, Sullivan from time to time admits that he was wrong. He did so on Iraq, and he pulled back his endorsement of Ron Paul this year based on Paul’s racist e-mails, after first dismissing them.
Of course, there are plenty of pet obsessions he’ll never admit to being wrong on (his admiration for The Bell Curve comes to mind), but I can think of very few pundits of any stripe at his level who ever admit a mistake in judgment. He does, at least a few times each year, on matters large or small, based mostly (he says) on reader feedback. I’m sure that appeals to a lot of people.
Lastly, he doesn’t confine himself to politics in his blog, and I’m sure a lot of people appreciate that, too. Most political junkies have other interests in and curiosity about the world, and Sullivan was early to understand that sharing that about himself humanized his image in a way most Villagers have never dared to do.
None of that changes the fact that on some issues (marriage equality, torture, Israel’s depredations) Sullivan is very good, but on a number of others he’s so full of shit it’s been coming out his ears for years. Sullivan’s American readers have gotten so conditioned to the idiocy of Wingnuttistan that they rarely realize that in this regard he’s a fairly typical Tory or European conservative. People like Cameron and Merkel are closer to Democrats with hateful streaks than they are to Republicans, and so is Sullivan.
And it’s hard to shake the notion that, like fellow ex-pat Hitchens, Sullivan’s ability to keep finding new platforms in The Village decade after decade owes more to his mastery of Georgetown cocktail party chatter than any actual insight or wisdom.
I think you nailed why I read him. I disagree with him 90% of the time, but you know, he’s the adversary I want. His biggest and most annoying act of wanking in the post-2008 election is definitely on the definition of what it means to be a conservative. In reality he does care about the poor and the deficit — and he’s realizing that a lot of what he’s believed is a bunch of shit. But he can’t let go of his stupid label “conservative,” so he does everything he can to say that such and such isn’t a real conservative. It’s also annoying that he bashes liberals and leftists for not praising how awesome Obama is, and then on the other side of his mouth talks up how Obama is a standard Tory conservative. It boggles the mind why liberals/leftists are upset, Andrew, please continue with your amazing insights!
Another advantage is that he’s keyed in to a lot of people I’ve never heard of, and gives them a voice on his blog through some linkage. So I’ve found people I wouldn’t have found without him.
How’s the job search coming?
Had an interview with General Dynamics, an interview to be a Patent Examiner with the USPTO, and an interview with Parsons Brinckerhoff. All went well, just a waiting game now.
But all in all, pretty bad. Almost been a year since graduating, and I’ve still got nothing. Plus, I worry that even if I get the job with General Dynamics that I won’t qualify for an interim security clearance. If they allow the clearance process to play out I would be fine, but there’s like a 10-20% chance of me getting an interim. Your record needs to be squeaky clean with no flags whatsoever, and I have around 1-2 that would need to be adjudicated.
I know that you do not like this point that I make, but:
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Boeing-resumes-bringing-Russian-engineers-to-Wash-3483504.php
You should be calling your congressperson.
Boo…trying to pay our bills? Do you really believe that?
By the way…what happened to federal tax receipts from 2001 to 2007, after the evil Bish tax cuts, before the Freddie/Frannie bubble burst? They went Up!!! Lower tax rates, more revenue. Worked for Bush, worked for Reagan, worked for JFK, worked for Coolidge…it works every time…
This President is the worst deficit spender in U.S. history…
It’s the Spending, Stupid!
Tax receipts went up in every year of Clinton’s presidency but went down in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2008. Also, in Bush’s first four years in office tax receipts never met 2000 levels. And that’s in non-inflation adjusted numbers.
Factcheck.org. “Sen. Jeff Sessions wrongly claimed that federal revenues “went up every single year” after the Bush tax cuts were “put in.” Actually, federal revenues declined for three straight years after the first tax cut was signed in 2001.
…
Total federal revenues declined not only in 2001, but also in the following two years, according to CBO historical budget figures. In fiscal 2002, total revenues declined by $138 billion, and in fiscal 2003, they went down for a third year in a row — by nearly $71 billion. Revenues turned up in fiscal 2004, but didn’t reach pre-tax-cut levels until fiscal year 2005.
We pointed out these figures to the senator’s spokesman, Stephen Miller, who blamed the revenue declines of 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the 2001 recession. But that recession ended in November 2001, and federal revenues continued to go down for the next two years. And, as we noted, CBO determined that both income tax revenues and total overall revenues would have increased in 2001, if not for the tax cuts.
Miller also said Sessions was referring to the period after May 2003, when Bush signed the second, and smaller, of his two major tax reductions. But the fact remains that the largest of Bush’s cuts was “put in” starting in 2001, and significantly reduced federal revenues.”
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/07/sessions-wrong-on-bush-tax-cuts/
So, Liberty for All, now that you’ve discovered that you are wrong about such a central plank in your political platform – now that you’ve discovered that giant tax cuts do not actually cause revenues to rise – you’re going to revise your position in order to bring it in line with objective reality, right?
They’d sooner eat a big plate of broken glass than actually tell the truth.
That is because Laffer-curve lunatics are very stupid people.
YOu are obviously a moron. Lower tax rates does not create more revenue.
Truly, truly, I say unto you – only really stupid people believe this. You must be very stupid.
Reagen spent the latter 6 years of his presidency raising taxes. Including the biggest tax hike in American history, in 1982. You should read the article below. It generally casuses defenders of Reagenomics to stutter a lot.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-16/why-reagan-raised-taxes-and-we-should-too-echoes.html
Bush’s increased revenue was due to tax reciepts due to the housing bubble.
The second Bush tax cut was in 2003…2008 was after the Freddie/Fannie bubble burst…Clinton’s tax receipts were a product of the dot.com bubble, and Newt’s Republican Congresses fiscal restraint (remember Welfare Reform?)…
Bottom line… Bush’s tax cuts did not reduce tax receipts…
Sounds to me like you’re casting about for excuses.
If the same thing keeps happening over and over, it’s probably not a consequence of something different every time.
I’m going to assume you don’t dispute Booman’s assertions above about tax receipts during the Bush years.
As for the Clinton budget surpluses:
*Welfare was then and is now a trivial portion of the federal budget. Welfare reform had a minimal impact on federal budget deficits and surpluses.
*The dot-com bubble helped, but that was beyond the control of the federal government. Among the factors the federal government had control of, the two biggest factors in producing the Clinton surpluses were the 1991 Bush-Mitchell budget deal, and the 1993 Clinton budget (passed by Democrats alone).
As for the Great Recession, it’s inaccurate (at best) to refer to it as the “Freddie/Fannie bubble”. The housing bubble began well before Freddie and Fannie came to the subprime mortgage table.
If you’ve got a factual argument to make, please make it. If you’re just venting steam, that’s fine—just don’t try to do the latter and claim it’s the former.
The stupidity of this wack idea is destroying the country. You cannot tell these morons anything.
It is really important to tell the truth. If you believe that cutting tax rates increases revenues, you are a stupid person. It’s just as simple and clear as that.
Boo…
This has to be the greatest line in R&R history:
Well I heard Mr. Young sing about Her…
Well I heard old Neil put Her down…
Well I hope Neil Young will remember…
A Southern Man don’t need him around anyhow!
Look for the Warren Zevon response to that.
When did You go to Bed…
Fascinating retort…on the plus side, as someone who studies East and West…the music had a decidedly Eastern (i.e. India, etc.) feel…
But Boo, surely you must be opposed to prejudicial stereotypes…brothers screwing their sisters? How is that stereotype less shameful than, “Blacks eating fried chicken”?
Southern pride has nothing to do with racism, and you know it. It has to do with freedom, love of nature, independence, refusal to submit to abusive authority, horses!
I’m hoping your retort was in jest…if not, you’re worse than George Zimmerman!
Good Morning, Everyone.
As we begin this week, I think we already know what will be happening.
The MSM, as usual, will be trying to find anything to attach negatively to this President.
Follow the clues, folks.
We had, last week, a variety of polls, all of which had the President leading Willard by far outside the margin of error.
Last month, we had the FOX NEWS poll telling us that the President’s lead with Latinos was 70 – 14%.
The latest Rasmussen poll had POTUS at 50%. Always with Ras, if the best they could do with the President was 50%, that means to me that the President is actually at 55-57%.
Then, the latest poll of the Purple Swing States, where not only is the President leading Willard outside of the Margin of Error, but that the internals show the President with an 18% lead among women, while he is even with men.
That gap with women has been confirmed by other polls.
Then, WAPO tried some bullshyt about The President winning SINGLE women, but trailing badly among married, while PEW threw shade on that bullshyt showing POTUS trailing married women by 2 points. IN WHAT WORLD is 2 points ‘ trailing badly’. 2 points is the MARGIN OF ERROR, which means he’s even with Willard.
This is all about MONEY.
CITIZENS UNITED MONEY.
IF the President is within the margin of error with men
AND leading women by 18%.
I don’t give a rat’s ass how many voter suppression laws they pass..
there IS no horserace.
and, IF therei s no horserace,
then they can’t get their hands on that Citizens United money.
Just wanted to remind folks of that this morning.
absolutely! The Campaign Industrial Complex must be served. And it will be.
And NONE of the crap that Romney and his handlers are serving up are going to change the dynamics with working women. Romney already probably has a huge lead in the HUGE IMPORTANT Women who don’t work and whose husbands are multi-millionaires. If I were Obama, I would concede that 9,104 votes to Romney.
Of the 30 million working women who are of child-bearing age, and whose economic security depends on reliable birth control, Romney has probably lost them for this election. Rosengate says NOTHING to these women except that Romney is MORE out of touch with their lives than they thought.
I’m not a white, working-class woman under 40, but if I was, Mitt Romney’s behavior here would remind me of the rich, good-looking, older gentlemen who’ve tried a little to hard to get on my good side in a bar. Oh, look, he’s telling me that other guy doesn’t respect me like he does.