Roberts & Miers -- too clever by half

The Roberts nomination may be the perfect example of W and Karl Rove outsmarting themselves. If conservatives like Sam Brownback vote against Harriet Miers, then moderate-to-conservative Democrats like those in the Plains and the South could vote against her with impunity, citing lack of judicial experience. But if she goes down (or, more likely, gets withdrawn) then who does the President nominate? A hardline conservative female judge (his only real option if Miers withdraws) would only prompt a flat-out Democratic filibuster (you nominated a mainstream conservative, we would have supported her, now you are just pandering to the right).

I must admit that Roberts was almost the perfect first choice for a President wanting a conservative, brilliant legal scholar with little record to pick apart. But then every second choice pales in comparison. Bush's strategy (guided by Miers herself) may look too clever by half.

Passive Prayer, Active Hypocrisy

I have not been able to post for a while for a variety of reasons. There's simply too much to digest right now related to the hurricane, but there's a question I wanted to record now while it's fresh in my mind: Why do public officials say "The victims are in our thoughts and prayers"?

If they are really praying, why not just say "I am praying for the victims"? Saying that someone is "in my prayers", or even worse, "my prayers are with them" is a way for politicians to invoke God without admitting that they pray. And most public figures don't even say "I", they say "we" and "our".

Elected officials should not be allowed to associate themselves with religion without actually admitting that they are religious -- it's hypocritical.

I am praying for the victims and their families, and I encourage everyone to do the same.

The Iraqi Confederation

I understand the Bush administration's desire for momentum and a quick adoption of the Iraqi constitution, but why is it they think they can do a better job than Sam Adams, Roger Sherman, Gouvernor Morris, and [the original] Josiah Bartlett?


Of course it's important to get the parties to agree on a constitution, but no one should think a timetable so clearly driven by an outside power should last even as long as the United States' own first try, the Articles of Confederation.

A Democratic Agenda

Over at TPMcafe, Curt asked for suggestions on a Democratic Contract with America:

What, exactly, does today's Democatic Party stand for? What would we do with our mandate? What kind of society would be strive toward? What are our priorities?

I don't know. Nobody does.

So I invite readers to create a Democratic "Contract With America" that will suggest the direction, priorities, and values they would like to see in a revitalized Democratic party.

Here is my 8-point contract:

1) A universal portable health care plan that covers (a) the most basic preventive treatments and (b) catastrophic illness. It would NOT be as comprehensive as the plans offered today by most employers, but it would be affordable enough to make it universal fairly quickly.

2) A universal portable retirement savings plan. 401ks, IRAs, and 529s are too damn complicated for most folks to track -- and the employer incentives vary from place to place. Every American working family should have something like the federal employee Thrift Savings Plan, which has a few basic investment options and a significant employer match to encourage savings.

3) A universal education loan system that permits everyone to finance college and/or continuing education through a loan program whose payments are a function of future income. Participation in the college program would be contingent on ...

4) ... National service. Anyone who serves one year in the military or reserves, or who participates in community service -- including volunteer work for USAID-funded NGOs abroad -- would be eligible for education support.

5) Universal access to pre-school. There's no greater bang for our education buck. Since certification and curriculum are much less standardized even than elementary schools, my preference is cash vouchers on a sliding scale up to $60-80K in income. But I'm open to other mechanisms.

6) A new commitment to veterans and military families: (A) Better health care, especially for disabled veterans (and that includes mental health care), and (B) income support for National Guard members called to active duty. Such support should focus on housing and college savings assistance for their families.

7) Expanded federal home loan caps to help middle-class families participate in an often out-of-reach housing market.

8) Exempt the first $20,000 in income from payroll taxes, with an increase in the existing $90,000 cap to make it budget neutral. Such a change would make it significantly cheaper to create new jobs for working families, and it would amount to a budget-neutral tax cut of up to 7.65% for everyone earning less than $110,000.

Which way in Iraq?

Lots of thoughtful commentary today on Iraq, which has prompted the Duke to work through a much longer piece. In the meantime, don't miss Reed Hundt, The Duke's response, an apparently undecided Ed Kilgore, and why it all matters here and here.

Plame Grand Jury

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega dismantles most of the armchair lawyering that the Intelligence Identities Protection Act is not applicable to Karl Rover or Scooter Libby. True confession -- I half-believed the pundits (shame!) and was expecting Patrick Fitzgerald to focus on obstruction or other lesser charges related to releasing classified data. Until I see a rebuttal as detailed and informed, this observer is betting on a Rove indictment. (Hat tip to TomDispatch.)

One Fish Two Fish Red State Blue State

By popular request, here's a hat tip to Robert Kuttner for writing that the country is not irrevocably divided into Red and Blue. If a die-hard liberal like Kuttner is acknowledging that most Americans live comfortably in the middle while they work, worship, and break bread with people of different views, maybe there really is hope for a big-tent governing coalition.

He uses Tennessee as an example of a "red" presidential state that's really "blue" if you look at its governor and 5-4 Democratic edge in its U.S. House delegation. For those who really want to understand how to win in the Indigo world, read this bio of Rep. Lincoln Davis and its emphasis on bipartisanship and family values.

His folks -- our folks -- are right smack dab in the middle of the "culture gap" that Stan Greenberg had to go all the way to Wisconsin and Arkansas to find.

Sad story in Iraq

Sorry for the brief respite from posting, several crazy things going on in real life.

In the interim, don't miss Larry Diamond's discussions over at TPMcafe. When someone like Diamond -- who dropped everything to try to help set up a functioning Iraqi government -- decides that too many precious opportunities have been squandered, it's time to sit up and pay attention.

WWJD for Congress?

Wheaton College professor Lindy Scott is exploring a run for retiring Illinois Rep. Henry Hyde's seat in Congress. Prof. Scott is the Director of the Center for Applied Christian Ethics, and he apparently is taking his own teaching to heart.

"I would want to serve as if Jesus were serving," Scott says. A pastor in the Evangelical Free Church, Scott was a missionary and an author before joining Wheaton's faculty.

But before all of you blue-staters get your britches in a bunch, you need to know that Scott is a Democrat. He calls himself a compassionate Christian who is conservative on some issues and progressive on others. He opposes the death penalty and privatization of Social Security, and supports gun control, increased education funding, and steps towards universal health care. Foreign policy experience? Scott is the author of a book called Terrorism and the War on Iraq, he lived in Mexico for 16 years.

As the Duke has said for a long time, the evangelical community is not the monolithic conservative institution that Republican political strategists would have you believe. Wheaton College is a strong academic institution that is the alma mater of both Billy Graham and Denny Hastert. Some even call it the "Harvard of Christendom," a reference to its prominent standing among Christian colleges, so do not underestimate the impact this announcement could have across the evangelical community.

The Washington media have accepted the Republican spin that people of faith are all conservative Republicans. In part this may be that there are too few Democratic elected officials who are comfortable speaking from an evangelical perspective. Lindy Scott in Congress might begin to change that.

Pork vs. Iraq

The House and Senate Friday completed action on a new five-year, $286 billion transportation bill that editorial boards and good government groups will decry as pork-laden. As you would expect, just 12 of 535 members of Congress voted against the bill.

"We talk about jobs, jobs, jobs," House Speaker Dennis Hastert said. "For every billion dollars that is spent in this highway bill over the next not even five years now, it will create 48,000 jobs in this country." Also on message was Majority Whip Roy Blunt: "This is about jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs," Representative Roy Blunt of Missouri said Thursday.

Critics were equally adamant. John McCain called the bill "terrifying in its fiscal consequences and disappointing for the lack of fiscal discipline." Citizens Against Government Waste said, "The sweet smell of pork has blinded members of Congress to the waste and inefficiency of federal transportation policy."

But let's put this bill in perspective. It spends $286 billion over 5 years, and most of the money comes from from dedicated fuel taxes , not general income taxes. Yet over that same period, we will spend roughly twice that in Iraq-- $600 billion, or roughly 30 times the size of Iraq's economy in 2003.

So I don't begrudge members of Congress one dollar of transportation funding. It's only about $4 per American per week, or $220 each year. Sure, some of the projects may seem wacky, but the real question we should be asking is why we can't spend as much on projects at home as we do on projects abroad. The original House transportation bill was $350 billion, and there are clearly significant homeland security infrastructure projects that Congress has failed to fund. After all, a transportation bill 30 times the U.S. economy would be $350 TRILLION, not billion.

If transportation really creates so many jobs, particularly working class construction jobs, then the most important question to ask about this bill is why President Bush held up the bill for almost 3 years by insisting that it remain smaller than his budget for Iraq.

Improving with age

It was one year ago that Senator Obama gave the speech that inspired this blog. Listen, watch, or read it here.

Let's deal on trade

With deep roots in the plains states, the Duke loves the premise of the book What's the Matter with Kansas? One of the most interesting debates it has prompted is the role of populism today as it relates to international trade.

The Duke has spent a fair bit of time working on trade negotiations. If Kerry had won, I would have suggested Dick Gephardt as U.S. Trade Representative, not only because I respect him and it would be a bold political move, but because he would have a heckuva lot more credibility when he returned to Congress from the bargaining table and said "this is the best we can do".

Very few of the most ardent advocates of imposing additional labor or environmental standards on trade agreements have actually participated in an honest-to-goodness trade negotiation (parliamentary exchanges don't count). It's much easier to armchair quarterback the talks and let someone else take the political heat. With a strong labor ally like Gephardt at the table, trade critics would know he fought the good fight. But even then the agreements wouldn't look much different because the economics of stringent labor and environmental standards simply don't work out for our trade partners. Ambassador Gephardt might still fail to gain broad Democratic support because trade deals are inherently win-win in the aggregate and lose-lose at the micro level. Without a political mandate broader than the generic "trade expansion", it is incredibly difficult to put together a sustainable political coalition in support of trade. ... Even with a labor champion like Gephardt leading the charge.

In retrospect, Democrats on both sides of the trade issue made a significant strategic error in the 1990s. What they should have done is propose a grand bargain with the strong pro-trade interests: "In exchange for plenty of Democratic votes on fast track, the Free Trade Area of the Americas, and additional WTO rounds, pro-trade businesses will deliver Republican votes for a much stronger employment and job skills safety net. Portable pensions, portable health care, and dramatic (and I mean dramatic) increases in education and job training for working class families.

The reality is that trade is more important to multinational conglomerates than opposing a stronger worker safety net. In fact, safety net is the wrong word, because better skills mean greater productivity, and lower health care and pension costs would significantly reduce costs for companies such as General Motors and United. The right kind of investment in the "safety net" would boost economic competitiveness for businesses and workers alike.

Unfortunately, such a grand bargain on trade was never seriously considered, in part because the Clinton White House believed for the most part that it could win on the merits alone. "With just a few more pithy statistics (Americans pay twice the world average for butter), we can convince Congressman X -- who wants to be with us intellectually -- to take a politically suicidal vote." Sure, some transportation projects were traded for NAFTA, and that won a few votes, but how many of those districts remain "pro-trade"? Pro-trade Democrats offered very little to capture people's imagination and win the long-term political debate.

I know that the most ardent "fair traders" would oppose such a deal in an effort to insist on greater labor and environmental protections abroad. But globalization is happening and will continue to happen with or without trade deals. The most important question for Americans is whether or not our workforce will be equipped to compete. Let's deal on trade.

Stunning Hubris by Rove

According to the Washington Post, "when first questioned in the days after Plame's name appeared in the press, Rove left the impression with top White House aides that he had talked about her only with Novak."

This is why Rove is really in trouble. If his colleagues have testified that he told them Novak was the only person he talked to, then that's intent to deceive right from the start. He knew had done something wrong, misled his own colleagues, and thought he could get away with it. He is therefore directly responsible for putting the President and spokesman in this position:

McClellan at a September 29, 2003, press briefing:

McCLELLAN: The president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. He's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. If anyone in this administration was involved in it [the leaking of Plame's identity], they would no longer be in this administration.
[...]
Q: You continue to talk about the severity of this and if anyone has any information they should go forward to the Justice Department. But can you tell us, since it's so severe, would someone or a group of persons, lose their job in the White House?

McCLELLAN: At a minimum.

Bush, June 10, 2004: QUESTION: Given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, suggesting that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leak the agent's name? And do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

BUSH: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. attorney to find the facts.

Personally, I'm still stunned that there are any of Ms. Wilson's colleagues who are willing to show up for the President's daily brief.

The Party of National Security

Political blogs have a tendency to turn up the reverb on the Inside-the-Beltway echo chamber, and the Wilson/Rove case is just the latest example. The tactics are correct -- keep the pressure focused on the White House's malignant acts. But the strategists must be working behind the scenes to craft the positive message that will fill the policy vacuum of a wounded Administration.

Ed Kilgore suggests a good theme for critics to use -- irresponsibility -- but the challenge will be to articulate pro-active proposals that provide a clear counterpoint to Bush's record of fiscal, military, social, and ethical irresponsibility. Congressman Rahm Emanuel seems to be laying the groundwork to run on ethics (against Indian gaming, travel, and other congressional abuses). The Social Security debate leaves those opposed to Bush with any number of reasonable, "responsible" alternatives, and a right-wing Supreme Court nominee will cede the vast middle for Democrats to pine for a "responsible moderate" like Justice O'Connor.

But Democrats need a much more coherent "responsibile" approach to security in Iraq and the war on terrorism. Even if Messrs. Rove and Libby go down in flames and shame, the American people are not going to suddenly express great comfort in leading Democrats' ability to secure Iraq and win the war on terror. They will demand a specific, coherent alternative strategy. Senator Joe Biden has come the closest to date (PDF), as he is informed by a fairly sophisticated understanding that victory abroad can be achieved only with broader political support at home. Unfortunately, most other Democrats seem to be falling into the GOP's trap by oversimplifying the the options into "withdraw now" vs. "institute a draft". Neither option is responsible, and neither will do anything to fill the vacuum created by a weakened administration.

Bush and Rove have created a tremendous opening for Democrats to become the party of national security. Their mismanagement of our troops, reserves, veterans, and intelligence operatives rises beyond incompetence to disrespect and disregard. The rank-and-file are open to a new approach. Will someone offer it?

This is his test

Larry Johnson and three other former colleagues of Joe Wilson's wife say it all in their Congressional testimony.

There's a reason it's against the law to disclose covert identities, and his name is Richard Welch. And Welch's murder is the reason President George H.W. Bush was one of the architects of the law protecting his former CIA colleagues. Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass writes

In the early 1970s, ex-CIA officer Philip Agee wrote a book and worked with newsletters to expose the identities of CIA officers overseas. Bush hated Agee because, he said, one of the hardest things he had to do as CIA director was meet with Tim Welch and tell him that his father had been murdered.

Richard Welch, the CIA station chief in Athens, was slain on Dec. 23, 1975, by a leader of the Greek terrorist group November 17. Welch was driving down a street in Athens near his home, on the way back from a Christmas party, when he was blown away by a man with a .45.

"What was I to say to this young man?" the former president said. "Why had his father died? So that a reckless ideologue could sell more books?" While the 1st Amendment, political hypocrisy and irony grab our attention, let's not forget where this started. In 1982, in response to Agee and others, Vice President George H.W. Bush helped push through a law making it illegal to knowingly divulge the identity of covert CIA personnel. President George W. Bush can still talk to his father about the deadly politics of leaks.

The leak of an intelligence agent's identity is the equivalent of deliberate "friendly" fire, and the consequences must be similar.

I wanted to believe George W. Bush when he said he wanted to restore honor and integrity to the White House.

This is his test.

Wilson CIA leak

Josh Marshall asks,

Shall we up the ante?
The entire Wilson/Plame story and the Rove/White House criminal probe sub-story are just so many threads thrown off a much larger and more consquential ball of yarn: the administration's use of fraudulent evidence of an Iraqi nuclear weapons program to seal the deal for war on Iraq with the American people. That's where the real cover up is. These are just side stories. So why not cut to the chase and have a real investigation to get to the bottom of that?

No. I'd rather make sure I win this hand. Upping the ante to discuss these other issues dilutes our focus. Josh, when many wanted to up the ante on Social Security to talk about taxes or health care or economic security, you rightly kept us focused. This is a deadly serious issue, it appears we have the President and his closest advisors trapped, and it's time to stay the course.

We don't need to up the ante to make this an important issue. As Ed Kilgore says, this case involves

(a) a deputy White House chief of staff, and the president's acknowledged political guru, with enormous access to classified information; (b) a possible felony violation of federal law; (c) an act compromising our national security, and motivated by personal spite, as part of a larger coverup of information related to the invasion of Iraq; (d) a deliberate leak in an administration where leaking is a far worse sin than, say, gross incompetence in office

I would add one more: (e) an act that endangered not just one CIA operative but the lives of many other agents and informants who worked with her abroad. For the intelligence community, this is like an act of deliberate "friendly" fire.

Supreme disconnect

The "in" thing would be to post the standard talking points about hoping Bush will try to unite not divide, to reach bipartisan consensus, to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat with a similar moderate, or at least a pathbreaking woman or minority. Blah, blah, blah, blog.

There is no question this will be the defining political battle for the next few months, and that the Supreme Court touches people's lives in a myriad of ways. The importance of the debate is driven by the long-lasting impact of a Supreme Court appointment. However, as evidenced by O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy -- heck, even Blackmun -- it will take years for the true impact of Bush's appointment to be fully realized or understood. The nature of case law jurisprudence and shifting 5-vote coalitions make rapid changes from the Court unlikely. By the same token, however, the forthcoming political strum und drang will have very little near-term impact on most people's daily lives.

In reading the interest group rhetoric (which has been polished for years in anticipation of this moment), the Duke already feels a disconnect. My hope and aspiration is that at least a few of our leaders will rise to the challenge and make a direct connection between the legal issues that will be debated and the stories of everyday folks. Otherwise, the polarization of Washington will look just like politics as usual to those of us in the heartland, and it will be even more difficult to build the public confindence and consensus necessary to tackle real-world problems like war and peace; jobs, health care, and education; and the challenges of raising a family.

Whither the Euro?

Ivo Daalder offers a thoughtful analysis of the European crisis, including his concerns for the post-Cold War peace we now take for granted. One major factor he does not address is the future of the Euro.

The best clue to what happens next in Europe will be what happens to public support of the Euro and of the common economic policies necessary to support it. The Duke has long held the view that the European currency cart was put far, far ahead of the political horse, and that economic strains would eventually tear the EU's fragile political unity to shreds.

If Ivo is right, then the politics are collapsing first, which is even more ominous.

Successful monetary policy requires a fair bit of independence from political pressures, but it also requires significant political cohesion so that the central bank can set a common interest rate across diverse economic regions. In the 1980s, for example, the Federal Reserve was faced simultaneously with an energy bust in Texas and the Massachusetts Miracle. Liquid labor and capital markets help balance such disparities, but a common political identity gives central bankers additional leeway. The risk for the Euro is that Europe has far less liquidity and political cohesion than most other common currency zones.

The European Central Bank is now facing enormous pressure to cut interest rates. With political support already shaky, it will be enormously difficult for the ECB to balance inflationary concerns in one part of Europe against the need for stimulus in another. A significant economic shock in just one region could further fracture political unity and put both Europe and the Euro into a dangerous downward spiral.

New faith-based group

According to ABC's The Note, today the Christian Alliance for Progress will launch "The Movement to Reclaim Christianity and Transform American Politics." It's an intriguing development, one of a few others throughout the country. Anyone have any more information on who is behind this? The Duke is not sure that any one of these groups will accomplish what Sojourners and other long-time laborers in these vineyards have yet to do (namely, create a climate for real political change) but the very fact that more of these groups are coming into being demonstrates widespread unease with the one-sided religious overtones in our nation's political debate.

-- The Duke

The Political Divide

Are we in a unique moment in political history? Why are political parties so polarized? Does Republican strength merely make Democrats bitter, or are Democrats' bitter attacks founded in fact -- or rather, the Republicans disregard for facts?

The New Donkey says ...

"We haven't really seen anything like this in recent U.S. political history, and that's why Democrats have to not only fight these people, but understand and outsmart them. The stakes are getting higher every day."

In my view, Democrats are experiencing the frustration many Republicans experienced in the early 90s when folks like Ed helped Clinton steal lots of "Republican" issues and redefine them as part of a progressive agenda. The Sui Generis part didn't start with Bush, it started with Gingrich and Delay's response to Clinton. They couldn't stand the fact that he outsmarted them, and so resorted to name-calling every Democrat a lying scoundrel. They couldn't attack the policy, so they attacked the person. And in many cases, the only way to attack the person was to distort the facts.

The politics of personal destruction have morphed into the politics of societal destruction -- they don't care what they take down with them, so long as they win.

If Democrats focus on good policy and factual argument, we can win a sustainable victory. But if we fall into the trap of being provoked by what Ed correctly identifies as deliberate Rovian insultswe will make the same mistakes.

There is one lesson to learn from the Republican response to Clinton's victories -- they never ate their young. You never saw Republican leaders vilify Bush I or Dole or Kemp as incompetent losers, but that's exactly what Democrats of all stripes do to their primary and general election also-rans (see Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, even Dean).

Two Ostriches Clash

"Should we stay or should we go?" is the clash of the day on Iraq.* The Economist quite rightly points out that "ostriches exist on both sides of this debate". [link$] The short supply of facts paves the way for wishful thinking, and one yearns for more hard evidence.

The Duke is attracted to the argument that

"the insurgency is driven by a simple hatred of foreign military occupation, the departure of the Americans might douse much of the fire. The withdrawal of their protector might compel the Shias and Kurds to show more generosity to the anxious Sunnis."

A sudden withdrawal, on the other hand, could be seen as a victory for the insurgents, strengthening their recruiting and motivating a broader struggle. This question of the pragmatic effect of a U.S. withdrawal -- is Iraq better off with us, or without us -- is a question that those arguing for and against withdrawal must answer with more evidence.

The Economist's account($) of American success in Tal Afar provides evidence in support of more troops -- flooding the region with the overwhelming force of a 4,000-strong cavalry unit not only created security, it led to trust and better intelligence among the populace. It is such examples of concrete progress that are more compelling to me than the ominous domino theory that the Administration relies upon, and that the Economist ultimately parrots:

Once they believed they had cast out the Americans, the Iraqi jihadis would doubtless copy those who pushed the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan, and celebrated by exporting their struggle to the Middle East, North Africa, Kashmir, the Balkans and, on September 11th 2001, to the United States as well. In short, an American departure might well placate Muslim sentiment as a whole but at the same time embolden the groups who have declared war not only on “Jews and Crusaders” but also on secular regimes in Muslim lands around the world.

The parallels to Soviet-occupied Afghanistan are less fitting than the parallels to Southeast Asia. This "Iraq as regional example" argument will fail miserably without more examples of success in the villages and neighborhoods. Let's pray that the American people start demanding more facts and less rhetoric.

Consistent Iraq criticism

Public opinion is mounting against Bush's Iraq policy, and some Administration critics are calling for outright withdrawal. Before Bush critics rush for the exits, we should recall that what is happening in Iraq today is exactly the outcome we predicted for a hasty invasion with shallow international support and fuzzy objectives. Is a hasty withdrawal with shallow international support and fuzzy objectives any more likely to be in America's national security interest? Of course not.

The Duke argued before the war that the United States should build a strong international coalition with clearly defined objectives and the resources necessary to achieve them. That's still the right approach. But Democrats are beginning to sound a lot like Trent Lott and Tom Delay criticizing Clinton's policy in the Balkans, driven more by politics than by our national interest.

Our national interest lies with the Iraqi leaders who are now struggling to write a constitution. Tom Friedman offers a note of caution:

Maybe it is too late, but before we give up on Iraq, why not actually try to do it right? Double the American boots on the ground and redouble the diplomatic effort to bring in those Sunnis who want to be part of the process and fight to the death those who don't.

Doubling American boots on the ground might be political suicide now, but a stronger coalition force would help stabilize a fragile situation and make Americans on the ground safer. The great tragedy of Bush's Iraq policy is that he squandered America's willingness to sacrifice too early in the game. By failing to work with our allies as true partners (as Clinton did in the Balkans, and as Bush I did in 1990-91), our allies don't "own" the problem and they are finding it easier to walk away. The result is that Americans are paying most of the price, and it shows in the polls. My hope is that it is not too late to build support at home and abroad for a long-term solution that honors the lives already lost.

They'll know we are Christians ...

There's a great gospel refrain , "Yes they'll know we are Christians by our love." The Duke hummed a few bars while reading the raging debate over at TPMcafe among some centrists and liberals who are trying to decide whether they are embarassed to call themselves Christians.

Even Ed Kilgore said

I can barely comprehend the views of "Bible-based" evangelical Protestants who somehow think the primary message of Scripture in our time is to ban abortion, proscribe homosexuality, put women back "in their place," support state-sponsored religious displays, and identify with the foreign policy of the United States as carried out by George W. Bush.

This is a rare oversimplification by the Duke's friend Mr. Kilgore. As one whose large extended family includes several evangelical ministers, seminary professors, and even a church motto that reads "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible", the Duke has a pretty good understanding of the evangelical community. The stereotypical "evangelical" worldview above is vastly oversimplified, and -- frankly -- a bit insulting.

There are certain evangelical "leaders" who espouse this simple platform, but more often than not those "leaders" are more like political pundits than faith community leaders. The real leaders and rank-and-file members of the evangelical community are more tolerant and care about a much wider variety of issues than the pundits would have you believe. But because most national Democrats have failed to speak in a language that resonates with evangelicals, the carefully crafted national Republican political message is the only political message that gets through.

Big national issues are a lot less important to a congregation struggling to help its members deal with job losses, crushing health care bills, struggling schools, substance abuse, and the other challenges of raw humanity. But since no one has bothered to explain in evangelical terms how national policy changes can help families with these "kitchen table" issues, the conservative political pundits have filled the vacuum.

How progressives should do this is a post for another day. But the only reason progressive Christians should be embarrassed is if they take the pundits' bait and allow conservative political hacks to speak for all Christians. In fact, if progressives seek common ground with evangelicals and reach out with compassion, tolerance, and yes-- love -- they'll know we are Christians, and it won't matter what the pundits say.

Out of Iraq?

Ivo Daalder wonders why the Bush Administration seems so disconnected from American public opinion on Iraq. Some readers argue for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, others say that would be abandoning an important Democratic movement. While the Duke believes President Bush has blundered badly in Iraq (and the Duke would make many, many changes), he has not heard a convincing, realistic alternative to staying the course. The Duke posted this reply:

This debate raises an interesting question from the domestic policy discussion areas: Is it better to oppose without offering concrete alternatives, thereby maintaining unity, or is it better to propose constructive alternatives through messy internal debate. The Duke is sympathetic to the "unity" of opposition on domestic issues, but he would argue -- particularly with regard to Iraq -- that singlemindedness becomes dangerous simplemindedness when it comes to foreign policy.

Why?

• First, it is more difficult to predict foreign policy outcomes. For example, we know the consequences of unified opposition to changing Social Security (precious little for decades). But our level of certainty for any particular Iraq strategy is much, much lower. The complexity of foreign policy predictions creates significant risks for "simple opposition", both the risk of being wrong and the risk of failing to create better proposals because debate was stifled.
  
• Second, it is harder to build public support for foreign policy than domestic policy. If you win the debate, you might get stuck with foreign policy position that is unworkable. The public has much less familiarity with foreign policy than, say, health care or education, and the public attention span is much shorter when it comes to foreign policy. This "public support risk" is dangerous because when Democrats return to power, there will be much less public support for anything approaching a sustainable alternative. Frankly, a demagoguic foreign policy (on the left or the right) is much more worrisome to the Duke than demogoguery on issues like taxes, abortion, or gay marriage.

Having said all of that, the Duke does not (yet) have a comprehensive proposal on Iraq. However, he is convinced that those arguing for a "withdrawal trigger" place too little weight on the significant national security interest in a stable Iraq.

New Labor

Josh Marshall asks if a strong labor movement is a prerequisite for progressive politics. The Duke asks a higher-level question -- how can labor be strong in today's global economy? The first challenge is to figure out how to unify workers across jobs, locations, and industries. Since people now change jobs roughly 10 times in a career, the age of the 30-year gold watch is fast disappearing. Imagine the power of a labor movement that was able to secure portable health care, portable pensions, and portable worker safety standards, not just from one individual's job to job, but across industries and even national boundaries. The old organizing mechanism of company or plant votes is probably not the way to achieve that. (The Duke is pro-business, pro-trade, and pro-technology, but also pro-labor -- the National Labor Relations Board and the rules governing union elections have been so gutted that it is both hard to organize and -- even worse -- hard for rank-and-file members to hold union leadership accountable).

The Duke is intrigued by the debate between AFL-CIO head John Sweeney and Andy Stern of the SEIU, but they are only scratching the surface. The Duke predicts that -- without more rapid change -- a new labor movement will arise completely outside of the boundaries of the AFL-CIO, and it may not even call itself labor.

Industrial vs. Rural economics

The Duke has enjoyed exploring TPMCafe, which blends several thoughtful bloggers with a lot of public comments pages. Below are excerpts from a good post by Ed Kilgore of NewDonkey responding to a Mark Schmitt post, and The Duke's comments.

[Mark Schmitt said] "Again and again, we have traded, voluntarily or involuntarily, the security of the 1950s middle class for greater opportunity, but also greater risk." This axiom captures a major source of the communications breakdown that has long affected discussions between Democrats from different regions and different social backgrounds. It took me a while to figure this out, but after wondering for years about the strong resistance of many traditional Democrats from the midwest and northeast to economic change, I finally began to understand that the 1950s and 1960s represented for them a sort of social democratic "golden age." Precisely because the South only marginally enjoyed the fruits of the industrial age, southerners, and particularly rural southerners, have a peculiar openness to post-industrial economic opportunities and policies. ...

I make this point for two reasons: (1) I think it's important to understand why the politics of social-democratic nostalgia doesn't work very well in less-industrial parts of the country; and (2) we all need to get over the stereotype that "information-age" economic strategies, including a focus on technology, training, and quality of life, are just a latte-class relic of the 90s tech boom that we should now acknowledge as a partial betrayal of the economic interests of working Americans.

Ed makes a good point that the economic benefits championed by Democrats don't resonate well in non-industrial areas (in not just the South, but in small towns in the midwest and most of the West). The critics of this post are missing the point -- it's not that these economic policies won't benefit the South, but that Democrats frequently fail to communicate economic policies in a way that resonates with folks who have not experienced the benefits the way the industrial working class has.

Ed's saying that the politics don't work well, he's not disagreeing with the objectives of good jobs, health care, and a secure retirement.

I would take the point a step further. Many Democrats' failure to articulate an economic message that resonates in these communities makes it that much more difficult to gain the trust of voters on social issues. Clinton succeeded because people felt like he was "one of us", and we gave him the benefit of the doubt on social issues because he was watching out for our pocketbook.

Ed's second point about information technology is right on target. Mark Warner and other successful southern Democrats have found a way to use government to promote the interests of the working class that resonates in less industrialized areas. It's not "anti-government", as some critics here would have you believe, it's more effectively targeting government to the needs of the people.

Stem cell research

The Duke has not followed the stem cell research debate in any level of detail. Apart from passing interest that the traditional abortion rights lines have been blurred (e.g., Orrin Hatch's support), the nuances of the debate never provoked further inquiry.

But a recent luncheon with a friend who is close to a Cardinal opened up an interesting area of debate. Apparently Catholic teaching does not require "unnatural" or "extraordinary" means to prolong life. Catholics also encourage organ donation, though there is some debate over when such a transplant is permissible. If it is not a sin to let a loved one die naturally, without the aid of advanced medical technology, then it must hold that it is not wrong to let a frozen embryo expire on its own.

The Duke understands and even shares concerns that unfettered embryonic stem cell research could create perverse incentives to create new "unwanted" embryos. But it is a fact that thousands of those embryos already exist. It is also a fact that most will eventually be destroyed. Why can't people of good faith on both sides of the debate agree that embryos created before any research rules are implemented are perfectly acceptable sources of new stem cell lines?

John Bolton and foreign policy

Now that Condi Rice has rejected Sen. Lugar's request to allow Senate Foreign Relations Committee members to review the NSA transcripts John Bolton requested, the very future of bipartisan foreign policy is at stake. For years, people like Dick Lugar, Joe Biden, Lee Hamilton, Chuck Hagel, and others could agree to disagree on individual issues but reached broad consensus about the the threats and foreign policy priorities of the United States (think Nunn-Lugar).

If the White House succeeds at politicizing the congressional oversight process for foreign policy, I fear for my country.

Social Security reform -- a tactic?

Josh Marshall calls out Jim McCrery for flipflopping on Social Security privatization. I cannot find the post, but a couple of weeks ago the Duke read a warning that Bush' s Social Security push was all a plot to get Democrats to say they were for tax-free savings for everyone, and then eliminate capital gains and dividend taxes. Is anyone else worried that McCrery's tone implies that exact strategy?

To wit (emphasis added):

"I'm convinced the president's approach is worth pursuing in the legislative process."

... and

"I had not thought of the policy rationale they described yesterday."

If he had changed his mind on the President's specific proposal, he would have said his concerns were addressed. Instead, he said exactly what the Duke would have said privately if his objective was to use the President's proposal as a legislative ruse. Folks, Republicans are smart enough strategically to pull something like this. Anyone else pick up any similar clues?

Pat Fitzgerald and the First Amendment

The Duke has followed U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald's prosecution of the Valerie Plame case for two reasons: (1) the Duke knows personally how sensitive covert identities are, and is rip-roaring outraged at those who blew her cover; and (2) the Duke is a big fan of Mr. Fitzgerald's tenacity on terrorism and Illinois corruption cases.

But Fitzgerald's subpoenas to reporters have riled big media:

The Prosecutor Never Rests (washingtonpost.com): "His assiduous demands for answers from journalists alarms [sic] critics who believe he has created the greatest confrontation between the government and the press in a generation.

The Times editorial page has hammered Fitzgerald, saying that 'in his zeal to compel reporters to disclose their sources, Mr. Fitzgerald lost sight of the bigger picture.' His demand that Times reporter Judith Miller and Time magazine correspondent Matthew Cooper be forced to testify prompted the paper to call the case 'a major assault' on relationships between reporters and their secret sources, the very essence of reporting on the abuse of power.

Fitzgerald is too politic to talk back, at least before he has wrapped up the case. A federal appeals panel in Washington is due to rule any day on whether the reporters must testify, and his work on the leak investigation is not done. But he appears to wonder what the fuss is all about. He says freely that he is zealous, a term he translates as passion within limits."

But in a case like this, doesn't a prosecutor have an obligation to pursue the facts as far as the courts will allow? I would much prefer to have a court evaluate this issue than simply expect prosecutors to say "hands-off" of all reporters, all the time. It strikes me that Fitzgerald is bending over backwards to be quite focused and limited in his information requests. In somewhat uncharted waters, I want the prosecutor to make the best case for getting the information, the media to make the best case against it, and the judges to rule. That's what we pay these folks for.

Litmus tests

Political blogs and pundits are buzzing about the candidate for Chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has a long record of opposing one of the Democrats' core liberal positions.

"How on earth could he lead the party, energize its base, and raise money from the liberal coastal enclaves that provide so much of the party's financial base? Sure, he has a good national profile, has paid his dues, and has great ideas for the future of the party, but how could anyone think such a person could successfully lead the Democratic Party?"

If you're thinking former Indiana Congressman and 9-11 Commission member Tim Roemer you've been drinking too much pundit kool-aid.

The Duke is talking about Howard Dean and his pro-gun record and NRA endorsements. It should surprise no one familiar with the Indigo philosophy that the Duke does not excommunicate Democrats for opposing abortion or supporting gun owners. But why has the Democratic punditocracy rejected Tim Roemer out of hand while embracing Howard Dean? Has gun control really fallen that far out of favor as a leftie litmus test? Obviously, Dean's vocal opposition to the war endeared him to many activists on the left side of the spectrum. But if we think that kind of leadership forgives a disagreement or two, we shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the formidable appeal of someone like Roemer.

• A Democrat elected repeatedly from a tough district in the reddest of states.
  
• A thoughtful foreign policy thinker whose service on the 9-11 Commission gives him instant bipartisan credibility on security and the war on terror.
  
• Supported by pro-choice San Franciscan Nancy Pelosi and pro-life Nevadan Harry Reid

This is EXACTLY the kind of person who knows how to build a winning coalition.

Some of the most vehement criticisms of Roemer relate to his votes on abortion and budget issues, but you don't win in South Bend or Indiana without demonstrating some independence from the national party.

Of course, Howard Dean said some nice things about Gingrich's Medicare reforms, and the Duke has already mentioned his record on guns. If Democrats excuse those Howard Dean positions but dismiss Roemer out of hand, their knee-jerk, lazy litmus test thinking will continue to marginalize a vast population of hard-working families who should be in lock-step with the Democratic Party's economic message.

Conservative Democrats

The gnashing of teeth about the ascendance of conservatives in the South is overblown. (from NewDonkey)

Brownstein notes the formidable rise in the percentage of southern voters self-identifying as "conservative."
But a comparison of Bill Clinton's 1996 performance in the South to John Kerry's in 2004, makes it pretty clear that the rise--or more accurately, the resurgance--of southern conservatism is not necessarily the only cause of the current Republican ascendency, and is not inevitably an immovable object in the way of a Wave III Democratic revival.
In 1996, the ideological profile of southern voters was: 44% moderate, 39% conservative, 17% liberal. In 2004, it was 43% moderate, 40% conservative, 17% liberal. Not a big difference at all.
Clinton lost southern conservatives in 1996 by 55 points, while Kerry lost them by 73. And Clinton won the plurality group of southern moderates by 20 points, while Kerry won them by 4.

Good Democrats can win conservative southerners ... heck, "conservative" is certainly not the first word that comes to mind when evaluating Bush's fiscal policy. It's important to remember that "conservative" can mean a lot of different things, and that Democrats can compete on that terrain.

Honesty is the best politics

Blue state or Red state, folks elect people they trust to be honest and straightforward. Ethics trumps ideology any day. That's why folks like Paul Simon and John McCain are so universally admired. Michael Crowley's piece in this week's New Republic suggests that Democrats take a page from Gingrich's book and criticize the Republican Congress for its ethical lapses.

"...as long as Republicans deprive Democrats of any parliamentary power, Democrats should consider fighting back by extra-parliamentary means--going beyond the standard parameters of legislative debate and attacking Republicans not just on issues but on ethics, character, and their management of Congress itself. "

I agree, as long as we don't read Newt's last chapter on self-destruction.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050124&s=crowley012405

Mood Indigo

You ain't never been blue, no, no, no
You ain't never been blue
Till you've had that mood indigo
That feeling goes stealing down to my shoes
While I just sit here and sigh
Go along blues

I always get that mood indigo
Since my baby said goodbye
And in the evening when the lights are low
I'm so lonely I could cry
For there's nobody who cares about me
I'm just a poor fool that's bluer than blue can be
When I get that mood indigo
I could lay me down and die

You ain't never been blue, no, no, no
You ain't never been blue
Till you've had that mood indigo
That feeling goes stealing down to my shoes
While I just sit here and sigh
Go along blues

(1930) Barney Bigard, Duke Ellington, Irving Mills