Environmental disaster won’t be saved by “the center”

So says David Roberts at the GristMill:

And there you have it, the essence of wisdom in the D.C. establishment. The one thing everyone in it can agree on: That everyone should agree. That both parties are half-wrong and half-right, and that if they’d quit clinging irrationally to their beliefs and meet in the center, everything would be hunky dory. Oh, and they — the establishment — get to define where the center is, if that’s OK with you.

He’s absolutely correct.  The public finally starting to come around en masse and put all of the pieces together on their own - reliance on fossil fuels + policies that discourage conservation + lack of funding for infrastructure and research = environmental disaster + economic instability + national “in”security.

This is not the time to entertain any of the failed policies of the right.  This is not the time for “compromise.”  This is the time to keep pressing and educating and working until opposition to progressive policies on the energy and environment are the only acceptable option.

When you win the Stanley Cup, you don’t let the other team have a few skates around the arena with it.

The economy, smart guy

I don’t like calling people stupid.

The famous third leg of the 1992 Clinton message triangle, “It’s the economy, stupid,” was intended not just to remind the first President Bush about what was on people’s minds at the time.  It was also a helpful reminder to EVERY one associated with the Clinton campaign that no matter what question they were asked, they should always pivot it back to the economy.

Well, we’re right back there again and it’s helpful for news outlets to continue hammering away.

So I raise my glass to Politico which finally wrote a story about policy instead of process with: Candidates starkly divided on economy.

Though the piece spends a little too much time talking about the teams of economic experts that both campaigns have assembled, if you stare hard enough you can get a grain of the fundamental differences between Obama and McCain:

Obama sees an economy fraught with peril and would press immediately for a new economic stimulus package to help state governments, ease energy costs and steady the market in the short term.

His roots as a community activist in Chicago are woven throughout his long-term economic agenda, which calls for an activist government bent on providing a broader safety net and empowerment for the working class.

There’s some gobbledy-guk in there from Obama’s chief economic adviser about growing the economy from the bottom up.

On McCain:

McCain’s economic team is an eclectic mix of leading thinkers from both ends of the Republican economic spectrum. They range from Jack Kemp, a supply-side advocate with some tolerance for deficits, to former Sen. Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), a famed deficit hawk who could tolerate some tax increases.

Holtz-Eakin said he intentionally drafted a wide range of thinkers so McCain would be exposed to a full menu of ideas. Critics argue, however, that McCain has simply adopted the top priority of each side — seeking both huge tax cuts and promising a balanced budget — and created an economic message that’s difficult to defend, given the financial challenges the dual goals would create.

Voters may actually be starting to pick up on the differences in the two candidates on this crucial issue.  The latest NYT/CBS poll shows that by a 51-31 margin, voters think that the “Democratic Party” is more likely than the “Republican Party” to ensure a strong economy.  Though down from the 56-28 margin of last April, it continues the trend of favorability towards the Democratic Party that reverses feelings from the late 80s and early to mid 90s.

So yes.  It’s the economy, smart guy.

Anyway, before I get too high in my praise for the good, policy-oriented work of Politico, they reminded me of how they’re hurting America with: McCain’s humor often backfires.  Good stuff, guys.

Obama, Race and how the New York Times became the National Enquirer for a day

Time’s Swampland took the time to break down the Times story about their poll on race relations in America.  The analysis is much more critical of the way the Times presented the data.  I chose to focus on the unfortunate ignorance among respondents that led to the poll results.

We’re both in agreement however about the potential of an Obama presidency - not just candidacy - on race relations in this country.  They basically say the same things I did, except slower, smarter and with more words.  Towards the end of my post, when I wrote that perhaps after four or eight years of an African-American president could help change those poll results dramatically, I was basically trying to make this point:

Are you kidding me? The guy just wrapped up the nomination. Racial divisions in the U.S. have a wee bit of a 400-year head start on him. If Obama goes on to win the election, I really hope the Times does this poll again in four years. Whatever the result, THAT would be a story.

I was also pretty curious about why Michelle Obama’s favorability ratings were so low but somehow I missed this bit of information:

Why on earth would the story say “there’s even racial dissension over Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58% of black voters, compared with 24% of white voters.”

The numbers for Cindy McCain: 20% favorable among white voters, 9% favorable among black voters (!!!)

I’ve long made the argument that journalists care wildly more about candidates’ spouses than readers do, but someone needs to tell me why the racial dissension is “over Michelle Obama.”

And that, my friends, is why I generally don’t write about polls and news stories about polls.

Policy affects choices

Matthew Yglesias tends to write about a lot of the issues and policies that I happen to be interested in with the added bonus that he’s extremely smart and apparently knows everything about everything.  One of his most recent riffs was on this quote from President Bush about Bush’s non-support of energy conservation:

“The American people are smart enough to figure it out. They know the price of gas. They’re already driving less and seeking smaller cars. I don’t need to tell them; they can balance their checkbook.”

Y’s point is that the government can step in and make policies that give people more choices for conserving energy.  Essentially, the market sets up the conditions that the government can take advantage of to leverage relatively small investments into massive changes in behavior with huge benefits.

My example is the never-seems-like-it’s-going-to-be-built Schuylkill Valley Metro.  With gas at $4+ per gallon, with the costs of highway construction and maintenance rising, with the environmental implications of driving, the $2.1 billion for a reliable, efficient, frequent rail service from Philadelphia to Reading and from Philadelphia to King of Prussia and Exton, seems like a bargain.

President Bush is right.  I know gas is expensive.  I know I need to convince my wife to dump our Jeep Liberty and get a Smart Car (or my down-the-road dream of a plug-in electric).  I also drive a lot less in situations where I can get away with a bike, mass transit or walking.  But in the meantime, I’m still going to drive to the King of Prussia mall because there’s no other practical way to get there.

Folks are still going to drive to Columbus Boulevard and parts of Philadelphia east of Broad, south of Washington because there are no rail offerings.

I’m not an expert on zoning issues in the suburbs, but I’m guessing that a lot of the towns that are lucky enough to have a SEPTA regional rail station run through them also have density regulations that constrict the amount of housing available to folks who want to move to a car-free suburban location.

The point is, federal, state and local conservation policies don’t just mean mandating mileage standards for cars or recycling programs.  Those policies can touch our lives in ways that we don’t even realize.  Neither, apparently, does the president.

New York Times poll continues to reveal American ignorance

My random thoughts on the New York Times poll as I watch the 9th inning of the All Star Game.

Question 1: Why is this guy a “Democrat:”

“I don’t like some of his policies, like on energy,” said Bob Beidelman, 69, a white Democrat from York, Pa., about Mr. Obama. “Also I don’t like statements his wife made. She seems like a spoiled brat to me.”

He added: “I’m one of those white people who clings to guns and the Bible, and those things that Barack said kind of turned me off,” he said. “This isn’t a black and white thing. If a conservative African-American like former Congressman J. C. Watts was running, I’d have bumper stickers plastered all over my car supporting him.”

Those bumper stickers could go right next to his NRA stickers and the “If you can read this, you’re too literate.”  What specifically doesn’t he like about Obama’s energy plan?  The fact that it’s actually a plan?  Argh.  Spoiled brat?  So he basically feels about Michelle Obama the way I feel about Tara Reid.

More on Mrs. Obama:

There was even racial dissension over Mr. Obama’s wife, Michelle: She was viewed favorably by 58 percent of black voters, compared with 24 percent of white voters.

I can’t even explain this.  Michelle Obama has a lower (?!) favorability rating among white voters than the guy who could actually be elected president this November.

Does the following describe your life?

As it was eight years ago, few Americans have regular contact with people of other races, and few say their own workplaces or their own neighborhoods are integrated.

I have to admit.  My neighborhood is not as integrated as it could be.  In fact, at a neighborhood association meeting, I introduced myself to a longtime resident who was proud to inform me of the amount of diversity the neighborhood had gotten over the past few years.  “Used to be we only had Italian Americans,” he said, “now we have Irish Americans, Russian Americans, even some Jewish.”  Baby steps, I guess.

That’s what it’s going to take.  Integration in neighborhoods, living spaces.  It’s not enough to be “tolerant” since that’s just the middle of the spectrum.  In order to get to the opposite end, away from hate and intolerance, we actually have to get to “like” and “love” of the other.  That, my friends is allophilia.  Check out this great article into research on that topic.

Maybe four or eight years of a competent president, who happens to be black, can start us down the allophiliac path.  One can hope.

Obama: Imagine a different post-9/11

Yglesias had back row seats for Obama’s national security speech and shared this bite from the event:

Imagine, for a moment, what we could have done in those days, and months, and years after 9/11.

• We could have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, the Taliban, and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.
• We could have secured loose nuclear materials around the world, and updated a 20th century non-proliferation framework to meet the challenges of the 21st.
• We could have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in alternative sources of energy to grow our economy, save our planet, and end the tyranny of oil.
• We could have strengthened old alliances, formed new partnerships, and renewed international institutions to advance peace and prosperity.
• We could have called on a new generation to step into the strong currents of history, and to serve their country as troops and teachers, Peace Corps volunteers and police officers.
• We could have secured our homeland—investing in sophisticated new protection for our ports, our trains and our power plants.
• We could have rebuilt our roads and bridges, laid down new rail and broadband and electricity systems, and made college affordable for every American to strengthen our ability to compete.
• We could have done that.

Instead, we have lost thousands of American lives, spent nearly a trillion dollars, alienated allies and neglected emerging threats – all in the cause of fighting a war for well over five years in a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.

Yep.  Mistakes were made.

Who won the week?

According to Dick Polman, looks like it was Obama:

Fairly or not, there are millions of white voters who need to feel more comfortable with Obama before they can commit to supporting him. If they somehow perceive that Obama is in thrall to Jesse and the old-guard civil rights leaders, they will not support him. They have never been comfortable with Jesse’s style, or his victimhood ethos. And they weren’t fans of Jesse when he ran for president; back in the 1988 primaries, Jesse drew only 12 percent of all the white voters.

This is why Jesse’s off-camera outburst (”See, Barack’s been talking down to black people…I wanna cut his nuts off”) is such a gift to Obama. It’s vivid evidence that Jesse has been politically marginalized, that time has passed him by, that his large and tender ego has been bruised, and that all he can do is lash out from the sidelines. Heck, even his own son publicly repudiated him. And wary white voters can now say to themselves, “If Jesse is this ticked off at Obama, that’s a big compliment to Obama.”

That’s just one of the gifts that Obama got this week.  We’ll see, as Josh Marshall points out through one of his commenters, whether “whining” will replace “clinging” as the most used verb when describing Joe and Jane Sixpack.

Pixar votes Democratic this time around

Onion AV club provides “Your guide to the WALL-E controversy”.

“What WALL-E controversy?” You might ask.

Isn’t that the movie that got near universal great ratings from critics around the country?  Haven’t people been leaving the theater making claims like “best movie ever” and “a historic moment in American filmmaking?”

Yes, yes and probably.

Apparently, though, the movie’s message (and every movie has to have a message, right?) has been stirring up the ire of some conservatives who claim that it’s “liberal fascism,” “hypocritical,” “too popular” (huh?), and my favorite, “prejudiced against fat people.”  In short, there’s a lot of politics behind and around this flick.

Gawker, as pointed out by AV Club’s O’Neal, hits the nail on the head, however, when they point to the bi-partisan nature of Pixar’s successful movies:

One reason for the conservative disappointment with the movie is because Pixar is the cultural equivalent of the swing voter: despite its hippie culture, the studio has been attuned to shifting public attitudes; indeed, given the lead-time on Pixar projects, it’s successfully anticipated them. The studio’s most political project before WALL-E was The Incredibles; the 2004 movie is a not-so-disguised argument against enforced equality and political correctness, and was adopted by conservatives as a morality play of their own. This time, however, Pixar is voting Democrat.

Maybe political scientists in the future will be studying the “Pixar” effect on elections.  We’ll see how this one plays out.

Solving the Budget Deficit like Kevin Kline

Remember the movie Dave? The one where Kevin Kline plays a community activist who happens to look a lot like the sitting president.  In fact, he looks so much like him that he ends up being tapped to fill in for a while when the president suffers a massive stroke.

In one particularly memorable scene, Dave convenes his cabinet and with the goal of finding enough money in the federal budget to stave off cuts to a homeless program.  With a series of “well, duh” cuts to ridiculous government programs that seem to be nothing more than giveaways to the wealthy, the $650 million he needs for the homeless is secured.

Well, Hale Stewart at Huffington Post makes some of those same “well, duh” suggestions for getting rid of the budget deficit:

All that being said, what do I advocate doing.

1.) Get us the hell out of Iraq. That’s at least $150 billion a year and probably more.

2.) Let the Bush tax cuts expire. According to the Tax Policy Center, 57.6% of the 2001 - 2003 changes in tax law went to people with incomes over $100,000. At that level of the game, they can take care of themselves. The expiration will happen naturally because of the built-in sunset provisions. I have not seen an estimate of the amount of money this will bring into the Federal government. Let’s be conservative and say an addition $150 billion year. That means between an expiration of the tax cuts and getting out of Iraq we’ve got $300 billion in savings.

That means we’ve got $200 billion more to go. I would advocate at least another $100 billion from the Pentagon. They’ve had a nice run of budget increases, but enough is enough. In addition, there have been several studies that say the Pentagon’s accounting system is, well, terrible. That means all the increases we’ve seen in spending probably mean a ton of graft and corruption that needs to be investigated thoroughly.

So, now we’ve got an additional $100 billion. Frankly, if we get $400 billion in savings we’ll be heroes. That would be enough from the markets perspective. If you want to get the extra $100 billion, I think there are plenty of places to get it from.

None of this is especially groundbreaking.  And Stewart concludes by warning about the steep increases in spending on mandatory budget items like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.  That’s only going to get worse before it gets better.  But for now, if we can get a handle on the discretionary part of the budget, we’ll have won a major battle.

Government: blame it for acting or for not acting?

Grist raises an interesting point about voters’ reactions to the sharp increase in gas prices:

The most ironic idea, to me anyway, was Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) suggesting that voters blame “the government.” I thought people didn’t want the government to intervene in the economy — since 1980 we’ve supposedly been getting government “off our backs.” Thirty years later, since “government” didn’t do anything, there’s a crisis. Now, “government” is supposed to fix it immediately?

Can we finally get to a point where we all agree that there are some things that government should step in and do and some things that it shouldn’t?  The “government is bad at everything” from the right and the “government can fix everything” from some elements of the left has increasingly put us in situations where government steps in to do things that it probably shouldn’t while leaving other things on their own that it could do better than the private sector.

It looks like the price of energy is going to be another one of those cases.  Politicians will step in to encourage the exploration and use of more fossil fuels while punting on the quest to bring down emissions and find clean, renewable sources of energy.

John Rynn in his contribution to Grist makes a prescription for activists on what they should be pushing on policymakers:

That’s why I think that it’s imperative that activists argue that the reason oil is going sky high is because of peak oil. That way, not only is the discussion more reality-based, we can more cogently offer real alternatives like transit, plug-in hybrids, denser urban areas, and high-speed rail, instead of continuing to bury our head in the (tar) sands.

Now, any bets on if we’ll ever hear the phrase “peak oil” come out of the mouth of one of the candidates for president?