Dana Blankenhorn

Not Yet Begun To Fight

2010-09-03T05:56:00-04:00

Think of this as Volume 14, Number 36 of A-Clue.com, the online newsletter I've written since 1997. Enjoy.

As I noted last week, proof that this is a crisis Presidency is obvious in the polls. (Hey, Tea Party. Two can play this game.)

No crisis President is popular at this point in their term. Lincoln wasn't -- we were losing the war. FDR wasn't -- there was serious doubt as to whether democracy would survive. Nixon certainly wasn't -- "We're all Nixon's niggers now," said George Carlin, and the crowd roared.

Why is this? It's because politics are driven by myths and values, by assumptions of right and wrong. A crisis President, by definition, is elected in rejection of these assumptions, and gradually creates what I call a new Thesis, a new set of myths and values that will define power in coming decades.

So it is today. Every poll I see shows the President and his party are unpopular. They all show Republicans winning. But they don't see the Republicans as popular, because they're not.

The Republican Party doesn't have a platform, like it did in 1994 in its Contract with America. Instead it has a bunch of contradictions.

Cut the deficit but also cut taxes on the people who have all the money and keep fighting the war. The party's leaders promise two years of non-stop investigations of every little thing the President or his Congressional leaders have done, and anything else Fox News can dream up.

None of that is relevant to our present problems. None of it will make the country better off. Its aim is simply to replace Obama with someone (Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Glenn Beck) more favored by the GOP.

In other words, it's about power. Policy doesn't enter into it. Neither, really, does principle.

When Washington reporters look at these facts -- and I think both sides of the aisle would stipulate to the thrust of them -- they really fail to ask the key question, which is why. And the follow up, what does this mean?

At the heart of the Nixon Thesis is the idea that Democrats are illegitimate, that we are unAmerican, that we have no respect for the "Real" America and thus no claim on power within the government. What Republicans are doing to the President is no different than what happened under Clinton, and no different than what happened under Carter. It's also how Republican Presidents treated Democratic Congresses. It was created by Spiro Agnew, who is now dead. That's his grave.

But it worked. This politics of demonization has worked wonderfully for a generation, for the entire political lifetimes of nearly everyone now working in politics, whether in journalism or in the grass roots, in Congress or on the TeeVee. It drives the base to pull the Republican lever, it intimidates and infuriates Democrats, and it convinces what middle there is (and there isn't much) that both sides are crazy, but at least the GOP is united so let's go with them.

Look the comments on this blog. Read them carefully, especially those which engage in name-calling. There's nothing special about me or what I'm saying. It's the way they play, it's how they are. There is a profoundly anti-democratic streak to the Nixon Thesis, a core belief that only believers have any call on power, and that any challengers to that assumption must be politically and personally destroyed. It's less about the what of politics than the how.

But that's just half the story.

Democrats have lived their political lives like wives in an abusive marriage. Some have fought back and been pounded in return. Others have shrugged their shoulders and sought accommodation or crumbs from the Republican table. It's a political version of Stockholm Syndrome.

Again, nothing unusual in this.

It's how Republicans were under Eisenhower, who spent his entire political career leaning against the New Deal and made no effort to overturn it.
It was how Democrats acted during the Progressive era. Wilson merely added a stream of racism and foreign policy idealism to what Teddy Roosevelt had already created.
It was how Democrats acted, too, during the Civil War era. Grover Cleveland never directly challenged Republican assumptions, he just tried to do what they wanted to do more honestly.
And so on, back to Henry Clay's Whigs, who never elected their leader or any real Whig during the entire Jacksonian Period, just a couple of Generals.

As Prof. Gilbert Cuthbertson taught me at Rice, MVP. Myths x Values = Power. The stories we tell, and the lessons they hold, define power in a democracy. They are more powerful than men or institutions. They are our bedrock, even more than the Constitution.

Challenging those assumptions is the job of a Crisis Leader. Challenging, and overthrowing those assumptions. That's why the job is so hard. That is why the leader is invariably so hated.

But, again, what of the followers? Generally, by this time, they're pretty discouraged, and they are now, too. Movement Conservatives in 1970 distrusted Nixon as much as liberals did -- I know this from personal experience. All they were getting from him was rhetoric. What was coming from Washington was still liberalism, often with the bark off.

Yet we know now that something was happening. Myths were being successfully overthrown. New values were replacing the old. Conservative myths, and conservative values, were slowly encroaching upon, and replacing, those of the New Deal Era.

The same thing is happening now. Liberals see the President as being too cozy with the national security establishment, too friendly with Wall Street, too weak to directly challenge even a blowhard like Beck. They see themselves and their causes as being under constant attack, just as under Bush, and they blame the President.

What has he done, anyway?

Passed health care reform.
Passed financial regulation.
Passed the stimulus.
Managed the Bush-era TARP program and turned a profit on most of it.
Replaced cronies and crooks with honest regulators who know about what they're regulating.
Gotten two strong liberals onto the Supreme Court.
Shortened the Great Depression that was coming into a Great Recession that will only last half as long.
Lowered crime. Despite economic hardship crime rates are actually down.
Ended the killing of Americans in Iraq, the dreaded "peace with honor."

Has he done everything? No. He hasn't launched a War Against Oil. He hasn't brought the economy back.

But he has accomplished an enormous amount, often with a fairly light touch. He hasn't called anyone a traitor, nor has he allowed his followers to do so. Even President Bush won kind words from him last night.

What's up with that?

What's up with it is the Obama Thesis of Consensus. It's more than a new set of policies. It's a different way of doing politics, as different from Nixon as Nixon was from FDR. And it's quite different from FDR as well.

It's not Right, and its' not Left either. It's Center. And it's a new way of defining Center. The Center will now be defined by all those willing to engage in honest debate, who are willing to bring facts and not just opinions to the table.

It is, in short, a scientific approach. As in the scientific method.

Scientists don't respond well to bluster. They respond to evidence. They look at how the evidence was gathered, too. When they disagree -- and they do it often -- they do it respectfully. When someone is trying to cheat the system, the penalty is that no one listens to you, other scientists cease taking you seriously. This can be worse than death itself.

If you look at what unites the President's appointments, it's this evidence-based approach. From Secretary of Energy Stephen Chu, to National Coordinator of Health IT David Blumenthal, to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid director Donald Berwick. They got where they are by being experts in their fields, and theiy approach their jobs with the discipline this taught them.

It doesn't look exciting. In fact, it's not. It's boring. Mainly because no one is challenging them on relevant grounds, on grounds of evidence. Instead their opponents have resorted to name-calling. As they have with the President himself.

Liberals have seen this game before. They saw 1994, they saw 1978, they assume this is a re-run.

But something has changed. Most Americans no longer share Republican assumptions. That simplistic, adversarial approach has been rejected by events. The Bush era is not down the memory hole, and in all the screaming going on in Right Blogistan it's still awfully relevant.

How would today's conservatives be different than yesterday's? Really. They claim they would be "truer" to "principles." How? And what "principles" are you talking about? Deficit reduction, when you still demand new wars and tax cuts? Americanism, when you're more judgemental than Joe McCarthy and more false than Parson Weems?

George W. Bush made that same promise, remember. He would be more true to "conservative principles." So did Newt Gingrich. So did Ronald Reagan. It was a lie then and it's a lie now. Because conservatism is no longer a set of principles. It's an ideology, on a par with Communism, Fascism, and Feudalism. It brooks no dissent, it rejects reality. It's all about projection, and in the charges leveled against this Administration you will see every fault and flaw in it.

What liberals have seen, throughout their lives, is a game they call "Charlie Brown." Each cycle they think they are going to win, because they're so excited and so energized. Then something happens, the knees jerk as the knees will, based on the assumptions of the last generation, and victory is snatched away.

Well, the assumptions have now well and truly changed. Once the President engages in the fight, once he wheels the full power of his office on behalf of his party -- something every President has done at election time since the John Adams Administration -- you'll be surprised.

Go ahead, Rightys. Try and kick the ball. Because now we're Lucy, and we're holding it.

The truth behind Beckapalooza

2010-08-30T13:45:35-04:00

Some critics called it Whitestock, but that's not the story here. Most Republican meetings are overwhelmingly white. Despite demographic trends, this also remains the reality of America.

No, there's a deeper truth about this gathering that should give mainstream Republicans pause. That is its cause.

As Beck himself noted, he thought about making this an economic call, but he instead made a social call. His shows and his stands over the last six months have all emphasized social issues, the most divisive on the agenda. Even the claim to be "reclaiming Civil Rights" was a tell in this regard.

But it wasn't a black-white tell. It was a movement tell. Beck is not of the Tea Party. He's of the Taliban party.

This should not be a surprise, but with his earlier emphasis on economic issues it will be to some observers. It shouldn't be a surprise because Beck has always been aligned with the American Taliban. Mormonism is less about belief than about actions, less about what you say than about what you do. Conformity was bred deep into Glenn Beck, and conformity is what those who followed him to Washington are most interested in.

Fact is, black and brown and Indian and Muslim and gay and young and secular Americans don't fit into Glenn Beck's America. There is no place for them there. There is no place for the majority of Americans in Glenn Beck's America, unless we wish to deny our nature.

This has always frightened the Wall Street crowd. Their alliance with the Religious Right has always been tendentious, and arms-length. This is also a problem for the Cheneyite militarists, who know that a "clash of civilizations" is more difficult to win if America is seen as being merely a Christian version of what Bin Laden is selling.

In the last crisis period, Nixon had neutered the anti-war crowd by this time, bringing out the troops. Tin soldiers and Nixon came, we were finally on our own, and most (except for a violent fringe) gave up on politics. Obama is the opposite of Nixon. He is letting the Right's violence discredit itself while doing nothing to counter it.

What the President is doing may be seen as more akin to what Roosevelt did, standing between Communism and Fascism, opposing both while creating social programs large enough to prevent unrest, but not large enough to solve the underlying problem of unemployment. In this case Barack Obama is standing between Christian Absolutism (which now has Jewish Absolutist allies) and Muslim Absolutism, and that's just the right place to stand.

Because Glenn Beck represents the former. That strain of American thought is not gone. It remains strong. RU-486 didn't kill it, gay marriage didn't kill it, even Terry Schiavo didn't kill it. It is, despite the nice clothes, the most personally frightening part of the Right Wing coalition, which is why even George W. Bush kept his distance (when it tried to interfere in foreign affairs or economic policy).

While the timing was a bit off, this event may go down as the Right's Altamont. Anyone who peers inside what was said, what was implied and what was sought is either going to be enraptured or appalled, and most will be appalled.

So who's Mick Jagger now?

Glenn Beck is. (Picture from the Golden Age of Rock.)

Run Against The Oilagarchs

2010-08-28T19:42:20-04:00

The "enthusiasm gap" is as great today as it was 40 years ago, when the anti-war movement was at its height, when Nixon seemed surrounded by enemies, when his cause seemed most hopeless.

He had tried everything he could think of to accommodate the left. He supported creation of the EPA, OSHA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission. But it meant nothing to his enemies, and his friends were turning on him as a result.

So what happened? He won a virtual draw in the 1970 elections, with highlight races like James Buckley (right) winning a minority victory in New York and Bill Brock knocking off Al Gore Sr. balanced against losses elsewhere. (It is easier to score gains when you start with a minority, as Nixon did.)

And he learned not to accommodate. He would never again appear so liberal to his own base, and would try henceforth to feed them more than rhetoric.

I have written here before of comparisons between Barack Obama and Nixon. Like Nixon, Obama is a crisis President. He came to office as the myths, values and assumptions of a generation had crashed the ambulance of state. Instead of being allowed to pursue his own course, he found himself for the most part on the defensive, pursuing conservative ends with liberal rhetoric, and angering his own base.

Everything Obama has done has emboldened his enemies, just as everything Nixon did 40 years ago emboldened his. And so we come to the Democrats' great depression, an assumption among both the base and observers that they're about to be run out of town, and that they deserve to be.

But Nixon's enemies, it turned out, faced deeper problems than anyone saw. They were dividing into tribes. There were the anti-war Democrats, the labor Democrats, the black Democrats, the feminist Democrats, the conservative Democrats, the southern Democrats. Each group was ready to go to war against the others. It would prove a simple matter of defeating them through the strategy of divide-and-conquer. Some groups (like the conservative and southern Democrats) were absorbed into the Republican coalition. Others were relentlessly scapegoated, to the point where even today, 40 years later, some still call liberals "hippies." (As though such creatures existed.)

What few observers understand is that, today, the Republican coalition is dividing into tribes just as Democrats did back then. In the face of their worldview collapsing around them, the product of events, different groups have taken the flag of one mini-cause or another and marched away with it.

Wall Street, Church Street, Easy Street, Oil Street, Racist and Military Street Republicans have always shared an uneasy alliance. Now they are increasingly going their separate ways. They are dropping one anothers' issues as priorities. They are becoming tribes.

The crowd that followed Glenn Beck to the Washington Mall is one such tribe. Social issues, religious issues are key for them. They hate the idea of gay marriage, many would love to ban contraception. They want their form of Christianity taught by the state, obedience imposed from above, confusing their will with God's will. No surprise they're being led by a Mormon whose religious ancestors did just that in Utah.

In taking his present path (and most people don't recognize this) Beck separated himself explicitly from the "Tea Party" Republicans, whose economic rejectionism was first paid-for by party insiders like Dick Armey, but whose extremism (repeal direct election of Senators) eventually turned off many faithful party members.

The President and those around him have sought to co-opt members of some groups, notably the Cheneyite militarists (we've doubled-down in Afghanistan and followed the Bush Iraq policy) and some Wall Street types (America's two richest men now regularly find common cause with the White House). These efforts are given short shrift by the nattering classes because most members of those groups have not moved. But some have, and some is more than none.

The greatest danger, as I have written here before, comes from the Oil Street Republicans, a small collection of billionaires dedicated to energy-as-resources who owned the Bush Administration and are willing to put their fortunes into taking back power. The Roberts Court has explicitly endorsed this effort, and this may be the real source of trepidation on the left today, the fear that Americans will follow the money and ignore their own interests.

That fear is overblown. Some 90% of the RSS feed ads on most liberal blogs are paid for by these oilagarchs, and there has been no mass rush for the exits at DailyKos and Firedoglake. Ads that don't speak to how you really feel are worse than useless. Any marketer will tell you that.

To my mind the biggest flaw in the Democratic message for 2010 is they haven't identified an enemy, and run against them explicitly, leaving the rest pretty much alone. And it's these oilagarchs who make the most tempting targets. That's one reason I have suggested making the War Against Oil the centerpiece of this year's campaign -- an explicit promise to pass new incentives for saving energy and producing it through devices, paid for by eliminating incentives for resource production.

I have also suggested the Administration call out people like the Koch brothers (right) by name, and there are two reasons for that. One is that the oilagarchs are reflexively secretive, and won't like having the bright lights on them, on their lifestyles, on their mansions, on their political activities. Second, it's a way to discredit their biggest political contributions -- follow the money, use the money, and a multi-million dollar buy on behalf of any Republican by these people becomes a polling negative.

Why? For the same reason Spiro Agnew (below) targeted the "nattering nabobs of negativism." You attack what appears a strength, and turn it into a weakness.

This is not something the President should be doing himself, of course. It's really a job for the Vice President. Joe Biden needs to find his inner Agnew. He needs to get mad, he needs to get some good speeches written on this theme, and he needs to go to friendly audiences with them, where they will play to loud applause.

A positive agenda in the War Against Oil combined with an explicit attack on the heart of the Republican money machine can win this election, and lead the way to real change, because Republicans are divided against themselves. You can already see it in where Tea Party favorites are being called "extreme" by other Republicans, and polls now show them in tight races where tight races should not exist.

Republicans are divided, Democrats are united. It was the same way 40 years ago, only in reverse. And in the end, back then, Republicans won. Just as Democrats can win today.

All they really need to do is do it. The Administration needs to lead. The crisis is cresting. History will not look kindly on those who dither in the face of the fire.

So this is my answer to those liberals who are depressed and assuming the worst for the coming midterms. We've got the GOP right where we want them. All we need is for our generals to sound the charge. Set the strategy and move.

The Core of the Issue

2010-08-27T06:26:00-04:00

Think of this as Volume 14, Number 35 of A-Clue.com, the online newsletter I've written since 1997. Enjoy.

Every political crisis in American history is, in fact, a sign of economic transformation.

Today's transformation is the move from energy defined by resources to energy defined by devices, by technology.

There is plenty of energy around -- from the Sun, from the ground, from the wind, from the air all around us. All we need do is harness and deliver it. This will trnasform all our financial, political and international relationships, so those who depend on the old relationships are fighting back with everything they have.

It's not about mosques or gay marriage or anything else we seem to worry about. All these issues are means to an end. They are pushed by, and products of, the financial strength of the oil power. Follow the money and this becomes obvious.

It has always been this way, but a brief review:

The 1960s saw a switch from a manufacturing-based economy to one based on technology and content.
The 1930s saw a change from a production-based economy to one based on consumers.
The 1890s saw a change from a collection of local markets to a single national market.
The 1850s saw a change from an agrarian economy to one based on manufacturing.

In each of these cases there appeared, on the surface, to be other issues in play. Social issues in the 1960s. Economic issues in the 1930s. Urban and rural problems in the 1890s, and of course the coming Civil War.

But these were, in fact, cover for the economic changes going on beneath the surface. In each case, economic interests who were losing-out to change sought political power in order to secure their position. In the crisis election they lost that power, and they then engaged in a twilight struggle against the new over issues only tangentially-linked to what was, in fact happening.

In all these cases the tide began to turn when the issue was confronted directly, when political power shifted from the ground held by the old economy to that of the new. Lincoln came from Illinois, replacing a string of men linked to slavery and agriculture. McKinley came from Ohio, a manufacturing center in need of stable input prices, replacing men associated with financial manipulation of markets. FDR represented consumers, overcoming progressives representing producers. Nixon and Reagan both came from California, home to Silicon Valley and Hollywood.

Economically, the current crisis has more in common with that of the 1890s than any other. President Obama comes from Illinois, a manufacturing center, replacing a Texan who based his career on resources. The rising "green" economy will require massive amounts of high-tech manufacturing, and a re-organization of our electrical grid, which was born in the Midwest. A lot of the talent we will need to make this transformation happen comes from the heartland, not from the oilpatch.

The President's biggest mistake in office, by far, is one that is completely hidden from view. That is, his refusal to directly confront the real enemy. Not just the Koch brothers, but the economic interests they represent. We are still subsidizing coal, and oil, and natural gas. The aid we give green manufacuturing pales in comparison. The question and answer are simple, not complex.

Changing our economy's incentives will unleash a flood of capital and millions of jobs. We need an industrial recovery, not a consumer one.

Why delay? One reason is that research is advancing at such a breakneck pace that the solar cells, and solar technologies, that would have made sense two years ago are no longer competitive. We don't yet know what will make the most sense in mass production, which is one reason why the talisman of our age is the windmill. We know what windmills are, and what they look like.

But there are other alternative energy technologies that are mature besides wind. Geothermal technologies are very mature. We know what the new grid has to look like. Insulation is simple, technologically speaking.

What critics deride as "cap and tax" and supporters call "cap and trade" is merely a means to a necessary economic end. Charging for the externalities of resource-based energy raises its price relative to conservation and newer technologies, making the latter more competitive. You can get around the tax by reducing your use of energy and increasing the supply of alternatives. That's the economic transformation I've been talking about here for so many years.

The President is reluctant to make enemies, but in this case we have no choice. Because we do have economic enemies, ruthless ones, and most of them are in this country, not in Iran or Afghanistan. Like America's social conservatives, the Taliban are a symptom of a larger problem, an economic problem, ginned up by existing economic interests in order to regain political power.

There is still time for the President to tell us the truth, and confront our real economic problems. Al Gore has been virtually silent since January 2009. John Doerr has been laying low. Vinod Khosla has been quiet. Or they appear to be. In fact they have been investing, they have been buying, they have been setting the stage for great fortunes. (If Al Gore becomes James Cox, it's no tragedy.)

These men, and thousands of men and women like them, represent the new economy, and it's the promise of that new economy that, once harnessed, will bring us the change we need.

The right American for Europe

2010-08-24T10:09:42-04:00

I haven't written about soccer recently, so all you politics fans stand down a moment.

In the wake of a disappointing performance at the World Cup, American football has to start over. Landon Donovan is 28 and will be heading downhill by 2014. Most Americans currently playing in Europe are being treated shabbily, they're being called lazy and lacking in ball skills. They have no leverage to be treated better.

The next U.S. coach -- and it probably won't be Bob Bradley again -- needs to add agent to his skill set. He needs to take responsibility for having key players learning and playing constantly. While European coaches can complain about the selfishness of their hopefuls, the American coach needs to be selfish for his players.

The USA team was hurt last time by the fact so many of our stars and potential stars were sitting on European benches. Solving the problem needs to be job one. Since European games are now all over American TV this job is becoming more urgent. (Ironically part of the solution involves sending some of our kids to places like Mexico, Brazil and Argentina, where they are more likely to get playing time and the fans' abuse will toughen them up.)

But there is a job two that is closely related. That is getting our top stars onto top European clubs and onto the field of play.

As Europe heads toward the closing of its transfer deadline, much of the speculation concerns Donovan. He played well at Everton, and they want him back. But Donovan doesn't want to go back. There is one MLS player, however, who is at the top of his game, who would benefit enormously from European play, and who could become a starl there.

Edson Buddle.

Buddle is 29. He has been scoring at a breakneck pace for a year now. He is the best scorer the Galaxy has, including Donovan. He is up for the challenge. He can go into an English side and do a lot more than Altidore did, because he has more experience.

American soccer deserves more respect. MLS is no longer a place where any European pro can shine. The level of play is on a par with the top of England's Championship -- and level with that of Scotland. (It's actually faster than Scotland.) But we don't get respect because our best young players aren't ready for top European leagues, they're shuttled from pillar-to-post and don't develop, and our best players tend to stay here.

Buddle can change that and I hope he does. Soon.

The coming labor shortage

2010-08-24T09:44:40-04:00

The papers are filled with stories bemoaning unemployment.

The job market does suck right now. Kids are growing up more slowly and experts bemoan that.

Well here's what the experts won't tell you. The kids are all right. And we're heading for a labor shortage.

Some areas of the economy are already short on trained hands and minds. Health IT, the field I cover at ZDNet Healthcare, has a severe labor shortage. This is going to become far more generalized across the economy over the next decade.

The current unemployment situation is temporary. People who have jobs are being worked harder than ever. It's part of the deflationary spiral we are in -- salaried employees are getting virtual pay cuts. There is also a startling disconnect between the skills many people have, and their location, and the skills some employers need.

These things tend to work themselves out. Fact is there are immense opportunities in today's economy. There is a need for green energy and insulation services not being met. Our infrastructure is crumbling, and that's a need. Chronic conditions and an aging population guarantee big needs for health workers. Getting capital to these opportunities is a short-term problem.

But over the longer run, seen from the perspective of the next two decades, we will have bigger and bigger labor shortages, in all industries, at all levels. Baby boomers want to retire, but there aren't enough younger workers to replace all their roles. And there certainly aren't enough younger workers to clean out our leaking bodily fluids as we head for that great dirt nap in the sky.

If kids are growing more slowly -- and parents who spent the last 20 years scaring their kids about the evils of society deserve a lot of the blame -- that's going to even out. They're likely to live longer. They're very likely to be working longer, because they will be needed, and because the physical demands of work fall with each generation.

So chill.