The Happy (Influence) Peddler

David Broder reminds us how much the world he loves has changed. Oh, sure, Charlie Rangel deserved to be censured but, just s when Dan Rostenkowski fell to corruption charges, it's a sad day nonetheless.

I think I can tell you why. The pursuit of power is what brings people into politics, and some of them pursue it with a grim determination never to be outmaneuvered. You can stand back and watch them work, but there seems to be no joy in them - or in the spectacle they provide. It's a deadly serious business, this fundraising, vote-counting, always manipulating treadmill, for the Tom DeLays and the Nancy Pelosis of this world.

Perhaps it's worthy of note that Tom DeLay was recently convicted of money laundering? You would think that would merit mention under the circumstances, although that might say a bit too much about Broder, "It's not the corruption that bothers me, or even the conviction - it's that he was so grim." Influence peddling, it seems, should make you happy.

What was different about Rangel and Rostenkowski was the sheer joy with which they played the game and the way they would let you know that, whatever the policy stakes, a game is what it was to them.

How did they let you know? They would analyze their own motives with the same disarming candor they brought to their calculations of their colleagues' maneuvers.

Somehow I think Broder means something different than, "They openly admitted that pretty much everybody in Congress is, at some level, for sale," but that's nonetheless a reasonable interpretation.

Broder tells us,

I remember conversations with [Rangel] when he was engaged in what may have been his greatest coup: helping free Hillary Clinton from the confines of the East Wing and converting her into a successful Senate candidate in New York.

The number of people who were determined to keep that from happening were legion, both in Washington and New York. But Rangel knew them all, and he knew how to get around them - by co-opting or by mowing them down, whatever was required. And he loved every minute of this game - which he played for unselfish purposes, not to expand his own influence.

Let me get this straight - the evidence David Broder offers of Rangel's selflessness is that he helped one of the most politically connected people in the world become a United States Senator, happily pulling in chits, trading favors and bulldozing obstacles along the way? And Broder knows that Rangel had no expectation that he would benefit from his ongoing relationship with President Clinton and his political supporters, let alone any future benefit from his relationship with Senator Clinton? And we know all of this simply because... that's the way Broder spins the story? Why am I left less than completely satisfied....

Meanwhile, Broder assures us, people like Rostenkowski and Charlie Rangel aren't greedy (don't be deceived by your lying eyes). Broder's explanation?

Often, they were just sloppy about the demands of the new era of politics.

Which apparently involves the unrealistic expectation that you'll be reasonably honest in your financial dealings and disclosures, and not commit any felonies on the job? The horror.

Broder informs us,

And [Rostenkowski] always hugely enjoyed the game he was part of - never burdened by whether it was negotiating with the Treasury secretary or regaling his pals late at night at his favorite steak and bourbon joint.

How often, I wonder, was Broder among those pals? And who picked up the tab?

Dana Milbank shares a different perspective, that we have "A House full of Rangels".

The rules governing members' behavior were proven so lax as to be irrelevant. The vast majority of transgressors are never punished - Rangel was penalized only because he himself asked the ethics committee to investigate some of the allegations against him.

To be sure, Rangel deserved punishment for his wrongdoing, which included failing to pay taxes on his beach house in the Dominican Republic and improperly using his office for charitable fundraising. But in the 30 minutes allotted to him for his defense on the House floor Thursday evening, Rangel and his friends made a compelling case that he was being punished for doing things that lawmakers do routinely.

"The only examples of anybody sanctioned for tax matters in this House in the history of the United States have been those who didn't pay taxes on bribes they received," Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.) argued in Rangel's defense. Several members had a chuckle over their laxity.

The most telling Congressional whining came from Rep. Peter King:

And Rep. Peter King (N.Y.), one of the few Republicans to oppose censure for Rangel, implored his colleagues to "step back" and reconsider. "Let us apply the same standard of justice to Charlie Rangel that has been applied to everyone else, and that all of us would want applied to ourselves."

It's really difficult to read that as something other than, "I'm in huge trouble if somebody pokes around for the skeletons in my closet - and many of you are, as well." But buck up, Members of Congress - if you can learn to revel in the sheer joy of influence peddling, no matter what that involves, even if you're caught and convicted you can count on David Broder to write a glowing obituary for your Congressional career.

Wars and Stimulus Spending

Pat Buchanan raises an argument I've seen elsewhere, in relation to David Broder's push for a military confrontation with Iran:

Cynicism aside, what is wrong with Broder’s analysis?

First, how exactly are “preparations for war” on Iran going to improve our economy when two actual wars costing $1 trillion have left us in the deepest recession since the 1930s?

Were those wars just not big enough?

The eye-popping cost aside, it would appear that, yes, spending on the two wars wasn't enough to have had a significant impact on the economy.

Initially, the war in Iraq made a substantial contribution to the widening of the budget deficit. During a period of economic sluggishness, this would be expected to stimulate aggregate demand. However, any stimulative effect was minor since military outlays increased by only 0.3 percentage points of GDP in 2003 and an additional 0.2 percentage points in 2004 (if measured by the supplemental appropriations, the increased outlays equaled about 0.6 percentage points of GDP in 2003 and 0.7 percentage points in 2004).

Also, the financial industry collapse that precipitated the present crisis occurred many years into those wars - they may have had some stimulative effect during the bulk of Bush's Presidency but, as they say, that was then, this is now.

Demagoguery: David Broder's New Bipartisanship

Perhaps David Broder has Halloween confused with April Fool's Day? Because....

[Given the President's limited ability to affect the business cycle] What else might affect the economy? The answer is obvious, but its implications are frightening. War and peace influence the economy.

Look back at FDR and the Great Depression. What finally resolved that economic crisis? World War II.

Here is where Obama is likely to prevail. With strong Republican support in Congress for challenging Iran's ambition to become a nuclear power, he can spend much of 2011 and 2012 orchestrating a showdown with the mullahs. This will help him politically because the opposition party will be urging him on. And as tensions rise and we accelerate preparations for war, the economy will improve.

I am not suggesting, of course, that the president incite a war to get reelected. But the nation will rally around Obama because Iran is the greatest threat to the world in the young century. If he can confront this threat and contain Iran's nuclear ambitions, he will have made the world safer and may be regarded as one of the most successful presidents in history.

First, as David Broder would know if he paid even the slightest attention to the military, the issue with invading Iran has nothing to do with the need for a multi-year, trillion dollar investment in munitions. It may be necessary to restock some weapons due to present military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that would not take long nor would it approach a level of military spending that might stimulate the economy. The problem is the same one we faced in Iraq, but on a much larger scale: We can knock out the government, but the problem is what comes afterward. Why, after Bush's catastrophic performance in Afghanistan and the continuing desperate efforts to stabilize that nation and continuing struggle to transform Iraq into a somewhat stable, somewhat democratic nation, would Broder not recognize the primary cost and burden of the war is not kicking down the door, but comes from the occupation that follows.

If Broder imagines a trillion dollar build-up to the war, though, perhaps he's imagining a reinstitution of the draft, and the training of hundreds of thousands of troops to occupy post-war Iran. But it's difficult to imagine the nation supporting such an endeavor. Given a sufficiently rousing duet of "Bomb Iran" from the President and John McCain, the public might be willing to support a short, easy war, but it's difficult to imagine anything but popular horror at spending additional trillions on another 10+ year war and occupation in the Middle East.

It's also fair to ask, what is the threat posed to the United States by Iran? How does it compare to the danger posed by other nations? As with Iraq, it's fair to ask why we should prioritize a difficult, costly war and occupation against a nation that poses us no direct danger and, all rhetoric to the contrary duly considered, doesn't actually pose a threat to our allies, including Israel. The whole "existential threat" thing is hyperbolic nonsense.

Then, of course, there's the economic aspect. If the government is going to spend a trillion dollars, it could spend that money on infrastructure development in the United States, and should see an economic return from that investment for decades. If the issue is good public policy, isn't it better to do exactly that as opposed to wasting that money on what Broder proposes - a bluff against Iran that could actually turn into a bona fide shooting war (at the cost of additional $trillions)? Is Broder admitting by implication that his calls for bipartisanship have nothing to do with which side has the better ideas, what's better for the country, or which party's approach is better for the nation? Broder could have devoted his column to arguing for honest governance and good public policy, but instead he pushes a giant bluff based upon bad public policy because he imagines the Republicans would get on board. Some kinds of bipartisanship we can do without....

Partisanship and Political Satire

Anne Applebaum, apparently desperate to meet a deadline, has tossed out a word salad of conflicting thoughts about politics and parody. She is depressed that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are staging a giant party in Washington D.C., and is even more depressed that people are planning to attend:

I don't know about you, but my heart sank when I read about Jon Stewart's Million Moderate March, planned for the Mall next weekend. My heart sank further when I learned that liberal groups, lacking any better ideas, have decided to take this endeavor seriously. It's bad enough that the only way to drum up enthusiasm for a "Rally to Restore Sanity" is to make it into a television comedian's joke. But it's far worse that the "moderates" in attendance will have been bused in by Arianna Huffington and organized by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.

No, wait a minute, Anne. When a rally starts as a "television comedian's joke" it may be possible to turn it into something more serious, but it's a bit late to profess concern that it might "turn into" the very thing it has been since its inception. As for the attention-hound Arianna Huffington busing people in, or... PETA? (That's really her best, and only, second example of people "turning" the comedy event into a comedy event?) So what?

This is how words, and then ideas, vanish from our political lexicon: Whatever connotations it once had, the word "moderate" has now come to mean "liberal" or even "left-wing" in American politics. It has been a long time since "moderate" Republicans were regarded as important, centrist assets by their party: Nowadays, they are far more likely to be regarded as closet lefties and potential traitors.

Seriously, by throwing what is pitched as a bipartisan comedic event, named to parody various marches that preceded it, Applebaum is concerned that Stewart is going to forever ruin the word "moderate", the way Reagan and his successors marginalized the term "liberal"? Is it that she imagines a world in which the only political descriptor remaining in use is "conservative"? She believes that the Republican Party's marginalization of its "moderates" - something that long preceded the planned comedic event, is the consequence of the event? Has it even occurred to her that Stewart's use of the term "moderates" is a reaction to the marginalization of moderates that she so deplores? The moderates "taking back America"? The joke seems pretty obvious to me.

"Moderate" Democrats, meanwhile, no longer exist: In their place, we have "conservative Democrats." Nobody pays attention to them either -- unless, suddenly, one of them threatens to vote against health-care reform. And then he is vilified.

More stuff and nonsense. There are plenty of moderate Democrats. In fact the majority of Democrats are moderate Democrats. (Does Applebaum believe Russ Feingold is the norm?) A great many "conservative Democrats" are aptly named, because they were fielded as part of an effort to bring into the party seats that were traditionally Republican, and the people holding those seats hold many or most of the political views associated with the Republican Party.

It's similar to the long-extinct species, the Southern Democrat. "Blue dogs" are an endangered species not because the party hasn't been accommodating, but because the present sentiment of the moderate Republicans who voted them into office is to vote for (drum roll, please) Republican candidates. We speak of "conservative Democrats" as "conservative Democrats because (as surprising as this may be) they're considerably more conservative than the centrists. That's what happens when you massively expand your party - you bring in people who lean toward the other end of the political spectrum.

As for the "vilification" of "conservative Democrats" who "threaten[] to vote against health-care reform", who did she have in mind? Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, who wanted to extort huge financial concessions to their states? Bart Stupak, whose concerns had nothing to do with the bill itself and everything to do with limiting women's access to abortion. Joe Lieberman, who after endorsing the expansion of Medicare suddenly changed his mind and threatened to withdraw support if a Medicare expansion were included in the final bill? Seriously, if you want vilification, look at the real and implied threats directed at Republicans who suggested that they might be convinced to sign on to a reform bill.

There is no lack of interesting people in the political center. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- one of the few popular incumbents in the country -- has not only declared himself a centrist but has also launched a campaign of support for other centrists. He flies around the country endorsing both Democrats and Republicans who he thinks show the ability to compromise and have the courage to depart from party orthodoxy on issues such as gun control (he is in favor) or more stringent financial regulation (he is against).

Okay, so we have lots of interesting people in the political center, such as Michael Bloomberg and... and... anybody? Bloomberg being a billionaire Democrat who changed party affiliations to run for Mayor of New York and demonstrates "centrism" by opposing financial industry reform and advocating for gun control laws? Sorry, but picking two issues, one of which is more associated with the political right (financial industry deregulation) and the other of which as been all-but-abandoned by the Democratic party even if popular with some on the fringe (gun control) does not demonstrate "centrism" - but it does reflect what you might expect from a Mayor of New York City who, even overlooking his personal ties to the financial industry, is looking out for the future of his city.

He nearly lost me when he inexplicably endorsed Harry Reid, but never mind.

Wait, why "never mind"? Harry Reid is a Nevada politician who has close ties to the financial industry, who has gone to the wall for the state's hotel and casino industry. Did Bloomberg "almost lose" Applebaum because Reid's support of "gun control" appears to be pretty much limited to wanting background checks for firearms sales at gun shows? Seriously, Anne, tell us what your gripe is.

Others are trying, usually behind the scenes, to find solutions to problems that divide liberals and conservatives bitterly.

For her example of this, Applebaum doesn't draw examples from the center, but speaks of people who hold strong political views coming together under the auspices of their "think tanks" to create joint reports. As with Bloomberg, her evidence for this "trend" is a single example, the joint production of "a report called 'Post-Partisan Power'",

which calls for the removal of wasteful subsidies and advocates investments designed to make "new clean energy sources" commercially viable. Just as important, though, is the point this group made by working together. In their introduction, they note that bipartisanship has helped create economic growth. And not only the distant past: Welfare reform was passed thanks to both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich.

Ah yes, the good old "bipartisan days" when Newt Gingrich stewed over having to use the back entrance to Air Force One, shut down government and whined that Clinton's welfare reform proposals represented his stealing Republican ideas. Ah, the bipartisan harmony....

As I see it, to be meaningful bipartisanship has to tackle a large, difficult issue. Welfare reform represents an easy issue because, for the most part, Americans don't care for welfare programs, are easily led to believe that they're too generous, and will support cuts even when times are good. Clinton defused an issue that the Republican Party had been pushing hard for years (think Ronald Reagan and his Cadillac-driving "Welfare Queen") at no real risk to his own electoral future. That's Applebaum's vision of bipartisanship at its best? It seems more like "politics as usual."

Bipartisanship is, of course, the source of plenty of disastrous ideas itself. Sometimes it produces worst-of-all-possible-worlds types of legislation, like those energy bills that subsidize gas, oil, wind, nuclear, coal, biofuels, hydrogen and anything else that might keep a swing state happy.

Are we truly reducing the concept of "bipartisanship" to its most basic definition - anything that is supported by at least one member of the opposition party is "bipartisan"? I had thought Applebaum was trying to advance a more sophisticated notion of "bipartisanship", involving the two parties working together to solve difficult problems. Passing around enough money to gather enough votes on both sides of the aisle to pass a bill may, in a nominal sense, represent "bipartisanship", but it really seems that we're again talking about "politics as usual".

Sometimes it produces agreements that are so centrist that one or the other party eventually rejects them. That's what happened to the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform, a bill I'm sure John McCain wishes he'd never laid eyes on.

Bipartisanship can produce legislation so centrist that it becomes unacceptable to one of the sides that negotiated the bill? Does that even make sense? As Applebaum has to know, the problem with the bill that she identified is not that it is "too centrist", whatever that would mean. It's that it made any concessions at all - that was too much for the Republican base to swallow, particularly in this era of anti-immigrant rhetoric and popular fear (fanned and exploited by Republican politicians and pundits) resulting from a severe recession and ongoing economic malaise.

Applebaum lectures that without "cross-party compromise... our system doesn't work." She purports,

That's what "checks and balances" means. In American politics, if you don't want to cooperate with your political opponents -- if you prefer to scorn them, shun them or call them names -- that means that you don't, in fact, want to get anything done. Moderates often achieve less than they could. But extremists achieve nothing at all.

First, no, that's not what "checks and balances" means. "Checks and balances" refers to separation of powers - the division of government into three co-equal branches, structured in such a way to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. The House and Senate can be viewed as institutions within Congress that serve to check and balance each other, but nothing in the concept of "checks and balances" requires that there even be political parties, much less that they cooperate.

Second, although it may be true that extremism is rarely a short-term approach to legislative victory, over the longer term ideas that started out as unambiguously "extreme" have become accepted by a majority and incorporated into our system of laws and jurisprudence. Abolish slavery? Grant women the right to vote? Prohibit alcohol? Forbid state-sponsored racial discrimination? Gender discrimination? Decriminalize homosexuality? Mainstream those with physical and developmental disorders? Permit the organization of labor? It's easy to look at today's society and see "nothing extreme", but you don't have to go back very far to find strong and often violent resistance to what we now take for granted.

And no, there was never an era in which the political parties held hands and sang songs of unity. Dirty politics, name-calling, and everything else Applebaum deplores existed before our nation was founded, and is often more obvious in parliamentary systems where you are more likely encounter opposition heckling on the floor of parliament. Does Applebaum believe more has been accomplished when politicians have been outwardly meek, focused on calming their supporters, emphasized the importance of working with the opposition, and pressed for compromise on everything? (I thought she didn't like Harry Reid.)

This, Applebaum lectures us "is why this Jon Stewart rally is such a gloomy development" - I mean the very idea that people might get together in a public square and engage in a lighthearted celebration of their centrism. What could be more destructive to Applebaum's brand of centrism - the approach to politics in which there are no absolutes, no lines that can't be crossed, and in which the best measure of legislation is not its quality but whether it earned "Ayes" from both sides of the aisle?

One of the many things Applebaum misses, and she seems to be trying to break a record for "most whiffs in a single column", is that to the extent that there are people who fit her narrowly constrained concept of "centrist" - people who scorn strong political ideology, will compromise on everything, and will celebrate that compromise above all else... Applebaum, Broder, and... I'm sure there's a third somewhere... they don't organize. Nobody organizes them - what's the point of holding rally for people who don't have an ideology? And they don't organize themselves because they have no issues around which they might coalesce. Yes, as right-wing critics of the Stewart/Colbert rallies point out, the primary appeal of these rallies is likely to be to politically active people whose politics are from the center (not Applebaum's bland center - one that is comprised of people whose political beliefs don't fit neatly under a party's tent and who, for example, may lean toward the Republicans on business issues but toward the Dems on social issues) and left-of-center - but so what? How, in Applebaum's sea of non sequiturs, does that become "blackly humorous" verging on "tragic"? And for somebody so devoted to "centrism", why is Applebaum's concern limited to entertainment-oriented rallies that are nominally centrist, when she doesn't appear to care about the rabid rallies led by demagogues like Glenn Beck?

Were Applebaum a more thoughtful person she might recognize that this nation does face serious issues, that there are serious ideological differences in how those issues might be approached, and that partisanship is not a bad word. What is in many ways a bad word is "bipartisanship" as used in the manner of David Broder, in which the term is reduced to "politicians setting aside their differences and agreeing with my agenda." Applebaum's notion of solutions to problems as being "too centrist" only serves to highlight the sloppiness of her thinking - again, it is the partisans who keep such legislation from passing, not the centrists. And "centrist" solutions to non-pressing, non-controversial issues does not illustrate how "centrism" is effective - it highlights how much easier it is to address the little things that don't excite the voters than it is to address the big, difficult issues that raise hackles on both sides of the aisle.

Broder's Bizarre Budgetary Bipartisanship

David Broder, commenting on the U.K. government's emphasis on balancing its budget, shares this gem:

Britain's budget deficit, now 11.4 percent of the size of its overall economy, is not that much larger than the United States' -- 8.9 percent -- but the debate has been similar in both countries.

Seriously, Broder believes that there's no significant difference between a budget deficit that's 11.4% of GDP and one that's 8.9% of GDP? In terms of the U.S. economy that difference translates into almost $170 billion dollars. Pocket change?

It is also important to look at the current U.S. budget deficit in the context of the recession. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the issue is not so much that government spending is rising beyond the norm, but that government revenues have plummeted. That has exaggerated the size of the deficit, but in a much less alarming manner than if tax revenues had been sustained:

Government spending has continued to rise more or less on its pre-crisis trend. Revenue has plunged, because the economy is deeply depressed.

Broder would apparently have us believe that he has no appreciable understanding of the difference in the social safety net between the U.K. and the U.S., that he has no understanding of the nature and extent of the economic crisis in the U.K. and how dependent the U.K. had become on its bloated financial sector, and that he has no understanding of the difference between the U.K.'s parliamentary system of government and our own system. I suspect that he has more knowledge than his arguments suggest.

My British friends tell me that it is only because of the two-party coalition that Cameron can take these risks. If he were dependent only on a minority Conservative Party, the risk of a public meltdown -- similar to what is happening in France -- would be too great.

It works like this: If you have a parliamentary majority you can pass your legislation on a majority vote. If you do not, certain key votes such as a budget can trigger a "no confidence" vote initiated by the opposition parties, and if you lose that vote your government falls. Thus a minority government is weak, and must work with opposition parties to avoid losing no confidence votes. The parties prefer majority governments, where they can often ignore the opposition parties' complaints and demands. But a strong coalition can put them into a similar position. As long as the coalition holds, the government cannot fall to a no confidence vote.

Broder is thus correct that the coalition government between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats allows P.M. David Cameron to push legislation and budget cuts that would be "risky" were he leading a minority government. But he ignores the fact that this is far from Cameron's ideal. What he would much prefer is to have a majority government, not a coalition government, and thereby to be able to do what he wants without cutting deals with or making concessions to the Liberal Democrats.

To the extent that we would look for a "similar breakthrough" in the U.S. system, it would not be the two parties joining hands and acting as a massive coalition. It would be... politicians "crossing the aisle" or the Independents in the Senate choosing to caucus with the Democrats such that they obtain or maintain a majority. Funny, Broder doesn't recognize that as a "similar breakthrough". Another thing that would bring us closer to the parliamentary system Broder seems to idealize would be the elimination of the filibuster.

So what does Broder pretend would be similar to a parliamentary coalition government? Um... no surprise.

If Republicans emerge next month with sufficient leverage in the House and Senate to approach Obama with a proposition, they could insist that he "do a Cameron" when it comes to federal spending: a radical rollback now in the welfare state in return for a two-year truce on such policy questions as repeal of the health-care law.

Did you catch that? If the Republicans win the House and gain votes in the Senate, Broder wants the President to accept from them the promise that they won't do something that they cannot do - pass a repeal of health care reform that would fail in the Senate or, if by some miracle it did not, be vetoed - in return for having the Democrats agree to "a radical rollback... in the welfare state", meaning "slash Medicare and Social Security". It's not entirely clear to me how you would simultaneously preserve healthcare reform while slashing Medicare, but I don't think Broder's primary concern here is consistency.

Even better, there's good reason to believe that the talk of repealing healthcare reform is nothing more than that - talk. The Republicans won't want to repeal the popular elements of the reform bill, but they're tied inexorably to the components that are unpopular.

You want to kill the individual mandate? Then you have to return to having people denied health insurance over their pre-existing conditions. You want to defund Medicaid expansion? You'll not only remove coverage from millions of working class Americans, you'll put a serious financial burden on the states, "red states" included. You want to reverse the Medicare cuts? Not only will you make David Broder cry (what good is bipartisanship, after all, if you increase Medicare spending) but you'll deprive other reforms of necessary funding. You want to restore the Medicare prescription benefit "donut hole"? It might make Broder happy but it will cost you at the polls. You want to repeal the entire bill despite the sacrifice of reforms that are at least in part necessary, popular or both? You'll increase the projected budget deficit.

So not only is Broder asking for massive concessions from the Democrats based upon their promise not to do something that they cannot do, the hollowness of the proposed gesture runs much deeper. And all the Democrats have to give up in return for the usual nothing are the party's biggest achievements over the past century. What a deal.

At the same time there's no reason to doubt that the Republicans could join with the Democrats to effect some tweaks and modifications of Social Security to improve its long-term fiscal health. Broder has been around more than long enough to know that's happened in the past - tweak the tax rate, tweak the age of eligibility, and voila. So really, if the idea is to balance the budget and preserve the long-term viability of Social Security, it's a no-brainer.

Medicare is much more complicated, and as previously alluded the reform bill includes provisions that are meant to help make Medicare more cost-effective, reduce waste and improve care. Yes, it's possible and necessary to continue in that direction, but do you have any sense that the Republican Party is going to emerge from this election and tell the "Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare" faction, ginned up by Republican lies about "death panels", that they're cutting Medicare? Seriously - which party was responsible for the last massive, unfunded expansion of Medicare? Surely Broder knows.

Broder is probably right, that freed of the obligation to take responsibility for the cuts - "It's what the President asked of us" - the Republicans might go along with slashing Medicare. But there would not be even the slightest hint of "bipartisanship" involved. It would be a colossally stupid, self-desctructive act by the Democrats. This is one of the reasons we're trying to balance the budget with "commissions" instead of legislation - neither party wants to be responsible for Medicare cuts and, Broder's wishes having been duly noted, as they cannot find a way to vote for significant cuts without serious ramifications at the polls, they're looking for an approach that let's them pretend that "no one is to blame" - that the cuts sort of, somehow happened on their own.

What about the items on the President's agenda that he couldn't get past Republican filibusters and self-serving Blue Dogs and a certain independent? A carbon tax? Immigration reform? Why doesn't Broder imagine President Obama requesting Republican cooperation on those issues, where their support would make a genuine and necessary difference, as opposed to having them provide a meaningless concession? (Yes, that's a rhetorical question. Here's another: Would Broder be on board with a plan that rolled the programs included in his conception of the U.S. welfare state "back" to the level that will exist in the U.K. after the current round of reforms?)

Update: More on the British budget cuts:

In a bid to streamline its armed forces and help reduce its daunting levels of national debt, the British government on Tuesday announced plans to cut its military personnel by 10 percent, scrap 40 percent of the army’s artillery and tanks, withdraw all of its troops from Germany within 10 years, and cut 25,000 civilian jobs in its Defense Ministry.

Can we expect Broder to push for similar budget cuts here, or doesn't that fit his notions of "bipartisanship"?

David Broder [Hearts] Rob Portman

David Broder concludes his hagiography of Rob Portman, a man he sees as conceivably "the Republican presidential nominee in 2016", with the statement,

[Democratic Lt. Gov. Lee] Fisher has tried repeatedly in this [U.S. Senate] campaign to portray Portman as the embodiment of everything wrong with the Republican Party -- a budgeter who created deficits and a trade czar who gave away jobs. Portman, thanks to his planning and his funding, appears to have won the argument with the public.

Is Broder still a journalist? Because if he is, I would have expected at least a nodding mention of the facts.

Also, given that this is Broder, where's the description of how Portman will bridge the ideological divide, reach across the aisle and usher in a new era of bipartisanship? Or is he quietly affirming that in his mind, bipartisanship actually means "Democrats making concessions."

"Do As I Say, Not As I Did... or Am Doing."

David Broder has penned a love letter to John Boehner who, with the potential of becoming majority leader, is giving lip service to cooperation across the aisle. Broder praises Boehner's "honesty" for not serving up the bald-faced lie that the problem is new, or that his party acted responsibly when it previously held a majority. But really, what are we supposed to make of the sudden embrace of bipartisanship by a chronically dishonest and hyperpartisan politician like Boehner?

I'd like to see Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic leaders take Boehner up on the challenge he has raised, not try to demean it. He said, for example, that rather than stifling debate through the manipulation of rules, "we should open things up and let the battle of ideas help break down the scar tissue between the parties. . . . Let's let legislators legislate again."

The thing is, why do we need to wait? What is stopping Boehner from immediately translating his words into action, apologizing for his obstructionism, the belligerence of his fellow Members of Congress, and his chronic misrepresentation of the majority's legislative goals and accomplishments? It's easy to praise Boehner for, in effect, arguing that the opposition party should roll over and play dead if his party wins - but why not call him to account for his own actions? Why not demand to know if he will live up to his words starting today, or if his party doesn't gain a majority in the House? Because even Broder has to know the answer to those questions....

When large majorities of the nation's voters voice disdain and distrust for a Congress that is supposed to represent them in writing the laws, it is not just a problem for one party or the other. It is a threat to our system of government.

Or perhaps the problem is that the public is treated to "analysis" from the likes of Broder who focuses on the horse race, not on substance, criticizes legislation not on its substance but based upon how many members of the opposition party defected to support a particular bill, and implicitly defines "bipartisanship" as "Democrats, whether in the majority or minority, making one-sided concessions to Republicans."

Update: Bob Herbert reminds us of the reality of John Boehner.

Playing it Smart in Congress?

Harold Meyerson is worried about "time bombs" in the healthcare reform bill:

But there are some provisions in the pending legislation that, if included in the final bill, may well drape Democratic candidates with "Kick Me" signs come November. One of these is the excise tax on more costly health insurance policies, a feature of the Senate bill that President Obama supports but that is opposed by organized labor and most House Democrats. Another is the fine to be paid by individuals who decline any coverage -- it's a relatively small amount (the Senate bill sets it at $95 for the first year) but an issue that could loom large in the political wars to come.

There's something that the Democratic Party can do, however, to try to counter that. The House can pass some clear, simple bills - single issue bills - addressing those issues in a way that will be popular and easily understood by the public - then announce that they need bipartisanship to get the bills passed. Yes, they should use the word "bipartisanship". And they could make clear that all the Republican Party has to do, in the interest of helping the country and its people, is allow an "up or down vote" - even if not one Republican Senator is willing to support "this much needed reform, that will so help our nation's working families in these tough economic times," all the Republicans have to do - really, all four or five Republicans who want to help our nation and its people need to do - is take the modest step of agreeing not to use obstructionist tactics to prevent up-or-down votes.

Make it personal, if necessary, publicly directing the plea to end obstructionism at individual Republican senators whose constituents largely support the legislation (even better if they're in vulnerable seats) - and demand that Republican candidates running against Democratic incumbents or for open seats declare their support for the initiative (if popular in their state) and make clear that they will allow "up or down votes" on important issues.

Even David Broder should lap it up.

Broder's "Distraction" Canard

A consistent theme of many critics of President Obama is that he's focusing on too many priorities, instead of the one that's near and dear to the critic's heart. I guess it's no surprise that David Broder is among them. As if President Obama could wake up one morning and decide that such trivialities as the economy were off of his agenda, and instead he was going to focus all of the nation's energies on whatever it is Broder or some other critic cares about that day.

Obama, on the other hand, came into Christmas Day with an overloaded set of self-imposed tasks.

You see? Everything Obama does that's not on Broder's wish list is a "self-imposed" task. Dealing with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Self-imposed. Interational efforts, such as "renegotiating our relations with other powers in the world and attempting to enlist their help in confronting outlaw regimes in Iran and North Korea"? Self-imposed. Rescuing a "wounded economy"? Self-imposed. Trying to come up with regulations that would prevent a recurrence of the financial crisis? Self-imposed. Seriously.

But Broder believes that the "Christmas plot" has "shaken Obama like nothing else that happened in his first year", and might change his leadership style - that is, put his attention back on things Broder cares about. You might assume, in this context, that Broder wants the President to focus his attention on the terrorist groups that are inclined to attack us, or on the nations that still host their cells. But no.

Many have been looking for a similar shift of tone in his dealings with the dictators in Iran and North Korea and even in his tolerance for the politics-as-usual maneuverings of many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.

Broder identifies two of his own priorities. First he wants the Obama Administration to prioritize a more militant approach to nations that had nothing to do with the attempted terrorist attack. Basically, to repeat the mistake of the Bush Administration in taking its eye off the ball in Afghanistan in order to advance a war of choice in Iraq. Distractions, indeed.

The second complaint is almost a self-caricature. It gets back to Broder's consistent call for "bipartisanship", which in his mind always seems to translate into the Democrats making concessions in order to mollify unbending Republicans. How in the world does he expect President Obama to end the "politics-as-usual maneuverings of many Republicans" (shouldn't that read "all Republicans" - with no offense intended to those who pretended to play ball on healthcare reform before scurrying back to their party to vote "no")? I must have missed something... when was Obama appointed leader of the Republican Party? When did the Republican Party give up its objective - an objective that has been admitted by many of its leaders - to harm Obama through consistent obstruction of the legislative process?

So once again David Broder confuses the interest of the nation with his own whims and wishes, once again he makes a call for "bipartisanship" that is meaningless in the present political culture, and sure enough, he's oblivious to the fact that the pursuit of his own agenda would distract the Obama Administration not only from whatever we're now calling "the war on terror", but would be an incredible waste of the President's time and energy.

Meanwhile, why is it so hard for people like Broder to understand that a President is capable of tackling multiple issues, and has a large staff and cabinet to which many of the issues are largely delegated? Or is it actually that they would rather try to convince other people that a President can only tackle one issue at a time, even though they know better, to try to scuttle any initiatives not on their own agendas?

Passing Sound, Popular Legislation Would Be a Handicap?

David Broder represents the mindset that got the Democratic Party into its present predicament:

I think Obama deserves more help than he is getting from his fellow Democrats in Congress, given the boost he provided them in the last election, the difficulty of the problems he inherited and the stiff-arm he has received from Republicans.

But the reality is that, the closer we get to the midterm elections, when they will be on the ballot and he will not, the more members of Congress -- and not just Pelosi -- will judge what is best for themselves and the less they'll be swayed by Obama.

But here's the thing: if the Democratic Party were to work together to pass some really good legislation, rather than taking the "every man for himself" approach most visible in the Senate, they could be seen as efficient, organized and capable, instead of clumsy, incompetent, undisciplined and self-defeating. Which face would better serve them in the midterm elections? If you're not sure, remind me again, what happened to the Democratic Party in Clinton's first midterm election?

Yes, other factors were involved, but it certainly didn't help that the Democrats had frittered away their control of Congress, fighting their President instead of working with him and defeating his legislative agenda.

Broder Confuses Budget Decisions With Public Policy Decisions

The use of committees to allow Congress to avoid making tough decisions? Hardly a new idea. Congress has used this method to obtain recommendations on base closures¹ that must be accepted or rejected as a package, in lieu of debating and deciding the issues. It may not be a particularly courageous way to tackle the issue or deal with special interests or the concerns of Members of Congress whose states are affected, but... we're talking about Congress, so you do what you have to do.

But the idea of expanding this concept to the entire budget, eagerly embraced by David Broder, implicates a much broader set of concerns. It's not simply a context where Congress has decided the larger issues, such as recognizing that savings can be obtained and efficiencies realized by consolidating military bases, and the committee is left to work out the details. There are huge public policy decisions involved in setting tax rates, funding various government programs, and cutting or eliminating funding for various programs and initiatives.

The one barely possible benefit from this predictably futile partisan bloodbath is the opportunity it could offer to leverage support for a long-standing bipartisan effort to force Congress to confront the hard steps needed to put the nation on a safer fiscal course.

That chance was highlighted last week when Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana and nine other moderate Democrats wrote to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid asking that the debt-ceiling increase be tied to passage of bipartisan legislation creating a deficit-reduction commission whose recommendations would have to be quickly enacted or rejected by the House and Senate as a package.

But this proposal has nothing to do with "hard steps". Sorry, Senator Bayh, but if you were serious about this you could easily team up with your fellow "moderates" and draft up a proposal to balance the budget over a given number of years. Does Broder truly not realize that the reason Senators like Bayh want to delegate that task to a commission, reserving to Congress only an "up or down" vote, is that he doesn't want to be held responsible for either making the tough calls himself or for the consequences of those calls?

It's pretty easy to form a bipartisan commission that understands a mandate to recommend base closures that serve the nation's financial goals without detriment to its military goals. But larger tax and spending issues are much more complex, and have significant policy elements and ramifications. You can almost hear Broder's voice trembling with excitement:

But the odds are against [proponents of the commission]. Because such a commission is likely to propose both cuts in popular entitlement programs and tax increases whenever the country comes out of the current recession, those members on the ballot next November, including Reid and Pelosi, would much rather avoid any discussion of such steps.

Here, Broder highlights two things: First, that he imagines the budget commission will be composed of people who share his own policy goals - apparently focusing on increased taxes for the middle class and the slashing of programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security that significantly benefit the middle class and poor. Second, that politicians shouldn't be held responsible for the consequences of "balancing the budget" by deferring significant policy decisions to what amounts to a black box - they know what goes in, they get to see what comes out, but have no input or control into what happens in the interim.

Were specific members proposed for this committee, Broder would likely either be much more excited ("They really do agree with me!") or horrified ("They want to balance the budget by increasing taxes on capital gains, having a robust estate tax, closing tax loopholes for the rich, a one-time wealth tax on the rich, by taxing corporate profits diverted through offshore companies as if they're domestic, slashing the military budget....") His support anticipates the former - and he's probably correct, that Bayh and friends have an eye on new or increased taxes on the middle class and the slashing of popular entitlement programs, but lack the backbone to simply come out and make those proposals.

Seriously, what if the committee came back and said, "To maintain Social Security and Medicare spending, and to ensure their full funding for the indefinite future, we recommend that the military budget be halved, that funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan be reduced by 1/3 per year until totally eliminated in three years, and that funding for the Army be eliminated with all of its bases and facilities closed," Would Broder still be pretending that this proposal is merely about crunching numbers, and not a delegation of serious policy issues with significant short- and long-term ramifications for the country?

It must be nice to know, in advance, that no matter what Congress does it will always be somebody else's ox that gets gored.

--------------
1. These recommendations come from the bipartisan Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commissions (BRAC).

Shorter David Broder

To succeed in the job of President you should not do any of the following: master the issues, reject selfishness and ideology, or make sound policy proposals.

Bipartisanship and Opposition Parties

As you already know, I'm a bit cynical on the subject of bipartisanship. So I have to roll my eyes bit when I read something like this:

And if [passing the stimulus bill] was this hard for Mr. Obama to lure Republican votes to spend money, how will he manage to entice Republican support to deal with even more contentious issues, such as climate change or health care?

What about the passage of the stimulus bill suggests that it was "hard" for Obama? Point to the precedent - any similar bill passed by a President, let alone during his first three weeks in office - and explain why this was "harder"? It was "hard" because the Republican Party decided to be "the Party of 'No'", and the legislation passed with the support of only a few Republican votes in the Senate and none in the House?

I find it fascinating that, not too long ago, factions like the "Gang of 14" were deemed to reflect bipartisanship - get seven Democratic senators on board with the Republican agenda, and bipartisanship lives! Get three Republican senators to support of a massive stimulus plan and it's some sort of failure to "entice Republican support". Somehow I doubt that Broder and the Washington post will excitedly hail as bipartisan every Democratic initiative that passes with the support of only small numbers of Republicans. No, I don't believe for a second that McCain's promise to reach across the aisle would have been treated in the same manner as Obama's - McCain's bipartisanship is reflected in his participation in that gang, and few of the beltway pundits would have demanded that he demonstrate any greater level of bipartisanship than that necessary to advance his legislative agenda.

I have no sympathy for the notion that it's Obama's failure if the Republican Party decides to remain "the Party of 'No'" in relation to every major bill he advances, or even to every bill that comes before the House and Senate. They're the opposition party, they owe Obama no loyalty, and if they believe they will gain politically by saying "no" to every bill that comes along that's their right. The questions left unasked: What motivates the opposition, and is the opposition reasonable? If there's a failure, it's in the analysis that suggests that Obama only succeeds if a significant number of Republicans sign on to his legislation, rather than looking at the reasons why that hasn't happened and may not happen.

As this editorial indicates, the Washington Post's editorial team is already anticipating the problem, even as they acknowledge Obama's outreach to the Republicans, so what will it take to inspire them to start editorializing about how the Republican Party has reduced itself to obstructionism, even of reasonable legislation, and won't participate in bipartisan efforts to create legislation on even the most important issues facing the nation?

It's Like A Black Fly in Broder's Chardonnay

David Broder tells us how the candidates feel about the negative tone of the campaign:

"I'm very sorry about it," McCain said in a Saturday interview at his Arlington headquarters. "I think we could have avoided at least some of this if we had agreed to do the town hall meetings" together, as he had suggested, during the summer months.

Obama, in a phone interview yesterday from Elkhart, Ind., argued that "the classic tit-for-tat campaigning" of recent weeks "is part of the politics of the past that we have to move beyond." Ironically, having turned down McCain's proposal for weekly joint town halls, Obama argued that the formal debates, starting in late September, may refocus the campaign on real issues.

How is that ironic?

In any event, I think it's simplistic to suggest that if there were an exhausting series of "town hall meetings", the discourse would suddenly become elevated. I don't recall that, during their respective, seemingly never-ending series of debates, either the Republican or Democratic primaries were sunny and positive. Broder quotes McCain,

"When you have to stand on a stage with your opponent, as I've done in other campaigns, you obviously have a tendency to improve the relationship. . . . When you have to spend time with somebody, I think it changes the equation."

Why let facts get in the way of that?

Only Slightly Less Adulatory Than G.W. = Batman....

Here I was, thinking "George W. Bush = Batman" would be the dumbest G.W. editorial I would read this week (not that there aren't valid parallels)... and along comes David Broder to praise G.W. as a brilliant manager. Naturally, he does this by relying upon the analysis of a Republican staffer who served Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford, an "old friend" of his that "probably knows as much as anyone about how to organize the presidency". We're off to a good start already....

One of the things Patterson teaches is that George Bush has been a more creative manager than is generally recognized. He has added three significant offices to the White House structure - the Homeland Security Council, the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and the USA Freedom Corps. Patterson's judgment is that these "add-ons will most probably be long-lasting," no matter who succeeds Bush.

So Bush singlehandedly expanded the government bureaucracy, and the additional layers of bureaucracy will probably endure? Surely that's sound proof that he's an effective manager - we were told up front what a good delegator he would be, and when he was left with too much responsibility he brought in more people to whom he could delegate. Oh, but it gets better.

He also credits Bush with improving the physical facilities of the White House in ways that will benefit the next presidents. The Situation Room goes back to 1962, but Patterson reports that it was increasingly inadequate until Bush decided at the start of his second term to bring it up to date.

Yes, I can picture Bush consulting with designers and architects, fretting over every detail, and... No, I would venture that if Bush was even involved in decisions to update the White House's physical plant it was along the lines of a petulant, "This place is so '60's. Can we change it?" And other than assuming some degree of petulance, who would want the President that Broder pines for - a guy who wastes his time on remodeling plans at the expense of... what do they call them... Oh yes - his job responsibilities. Broder seems to be taking the position that the generals who wasted their time and of millions of dollars designing "comfort capsules" would be great chief executives.

Bush also ordered an upgrading of the White House briefing room and has launched a much overdue modernization of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next door.

You mean, somebody said to Bush, "We need to update our facilities," he said "yes", and somebody else designed and implemented the updates? This is what passes for his proof of Bush's management skills? Oh, but it still gets better....

Not surprisingly, the vast expansion in the White House use of the Internet has come during his terms.

Including the machinations by which the White House illegally used RNC servers to hide its email, and conveniently "lost" all of those emails when somebody cried "shenanigans!" Now that's proof that we have a "CEO President".

No, really, Internet growth has been doubling annually. The "dot com boom" that occurred under Clinton was associated with the broad implementation of the Internet in K-12 schools and in colleges. The interns and younger staffers on the Bush team came out of that Internet culture. And Broder wants to pretend that it was somehow Bush's brilliant management that kept them from throwing out their computers, PDA's, cellular phones and Blackberries in favor of, say, carbon paper and courier services? How about a reality check on Bush, Internet genius....

HOST: I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?

BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see - I’ve forgot the name of the program - but you get the satellite, and you can - like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.

He's gone "on the google" to view a map and knows there's a program that lets you look at satellite pictures. Yep, he's the vanguard of the Internet generation. Oh, but it still gets better.

But Patterson says there are lessons to be learned. One of the most important is to understand that "Cabinet government" is a myth. The big issues and the tough choices inevitably come to the White House, so it behooves a new president to spend more time and thought on his White House staff than on his Cabinet - exactly the opposite of what Bill Clinton did.

Perhaps it's just me, but isn't something missing from that? As in, "How did Clinton's (supposed) emphasis on his cabinet over his staff make him less effective"? The inference here would presumably be that Bush did the opposite - so where can I find any evidence that his administration was more effective than Clinton's (presuming, that is, we're not limiting the discussion to tax cuts for the wealthy). And, surprise, it's still not over:

Another is to resist the temptation to economize by reducing the size of the White House staff, as Clinton claimed to do. "The issue," Patterson says, "is not how large is the White House staff, but how it is organized, and how professionally it conducts itself."

So Clinton didn't have enough Karl Roves around, and had the misplaced notion that he should spend time making sure government agencies like FEMA were functional? Whereas Bush "fixed" things by bringing in intensely loyal staffers, while completely screwing up his appointments for agencies like FEMA, or the entire Coalition Provisional Authority bureaucracy he set up under L. Paul Bremer to "manage" the occupation of Iraq? Fascinating.... I mean, I can understand the claim that it's good (albeit Machiavellian) management to route White House emails through RNC servers to circumvent public records laws, and to "lose" them when caught in order to avoid complying with the law. But the rest?

"Heckuva job, Brody."

Gerrymandering

David Broder has an interesting piece on gerrymandering and its effect on voter turnout.

In 2002 and 2006, the most recent off-year elections, about nine out of 10 congressional districts were won by more than 10 percentage points -- a clear sign that the game had been rigged when the lines were drawn in the state legislatures. In the first of those years, only eight incumbents lost; in the second, only 21.

As scholars have pointed out, the scarcity of real competition in nearly all districts has many consequences -- all of them bad. It makes legislators less responsive to public opinion, since they are in effect safe from challenge in November. It shifts the competition from the general election to the primary, where candidates of more extreme views can hope to attract support from passionately ideological voters and exploit the low turnouts typical of those primaries.

Gerrymandered, one-party districts tend to send highly partisan representatives to the House or the legislature, contributing to the gridlock in government that is so distasteful to voters.

I've written on this subject before. I would welcome reform.

Unfortunately, Broder dilutes his piece by opening with a silly attack on Barack Obama.

When Barack Obama decided last week to throw off the constraints on campaign spending that go with the acceptance of public financing, he was rightly criticized for rigging the system in his favor.

It's "rigging the system" to say, "I'll pay my own way instead of taking public money?" How so? Obama was rightly criticized, but not for rigging the system. The valid criticism is that he retreated from his prior commitment to public financing, and his promise to work with his opponent to stay within that system.

Did somebody attempt to "rig the system" (I would probably say "game the system", and perhaps "break campaign finance laws") in relation to public financing, using a commitment to public financing in order to get on a state primary ballot and to get loans for his campaign, then flip-flop on his entire record of "campaign finance reform", breaking his word, and declining public money? Absolutely. But that person was John McCain.

Some Interesting Stuff....

Some interesting commentary from around the "blogosphere"....

• The Columbia Journalism Review takes on David Broder for falsely suggesting that Obama's campaign is short on specifics while ignoring McCain's substance-free lifestyle.
• Imagining George Bush in his underwear for "special marital occasions"? Daniel Larison warns us that David Gerson is (and confronts him on his latest anti-Obama smears).
• Why should Cindy McCain disclose her finances? Mark Nickolas delves into the history of her financial support for her husband's campaigns and her past dealings with Charles Keating.

One Man's Vision Is Another Man's Delusion

Case in point.

This effort, which is nominally nonpartisan, is aimed at developing fresh solutions to the public policy problems that challenge the nation, from health care to immigration to inner-city education.

Gingrich is brimming with ideas on these subjects, but he is realistic enough to suggest that it may be five years before public opinion -- and other politicians -- are ready to embrace some of them.

Are we permitted to note, he's brimming with vapid ideas? (Sample #1; Sample #2; Sample #3). Oh but Broder tells us that he has a new "nominally nonpartisan" venture....

Government in the United States was designed to serve the interests of the people, not the government. This means that government must realize it does not own the money it spends – that money belongs to the people, who have chosen to tax themselves and offer some of their hard earned resources to government to do very specific and enumerated tasks with it.

Wow... how do they come up with such deep thoughts and fine writing... So deep... So... visionary.

What? You Want *Tears*?

Some news agencies and columnists seem shocked that the U.S. public is indifferent to the incarceration of Judith Miller, for her refusal to obey a lawful court order that she disclose her source(s) in relation to the "outing" of CIA agent Valerie Plame. David Broder suggests that the moral of the story is that reporters need to be more careful when selecting their sources - but that doesn't apply to Miller (at least in this context) as she didn't run a story on Plame. She obtained information from sources which revealed Plame's identity as a CIA operative. To the extent that some people are less sympathetic to Miller because of her history of cultivating dubious anonymous sources, and printing stories based upon their "disclosures" which ultimately proved to be false, I don't think that explains the public indifference to Miller's incarceration, or the possibility that it might be extended by virtue of criminal contempt charges.

The public has a natural skepticism of "anonymous sources", and with good cause. A lot of misinformation, and a lot of injustice, has resulted from the abuse of anonymity. When a reporter asserts that she will go to jail rather than disclose her source, the public can reasonably be expected to consider the actual downside of disclosure. Not the "chicken little" downside, where we are immediately propelled down a slippery slope to a point where nobody dares to provide information to reporters under cover of anonymity. But an actual downside - the here and now, "in this specific case" downside, which can be weighed against the benefit of disclosure.

In the case of the "outing" of Plame, the "downside" of disclosure is that the people who leaked Plame's identity will become known. In a best-case scenario, if you accept the word of the Bush Administration's spin doctors, Plame herself had limited value as an operative. But it isn't just about Plame - it is everybody who had contact with Plame during her covert work, and everybody associated with the company she ostensibly worked for, which was also unmasked as a CIA operation. And while I doubt that the typical citizen has thought through all of the ramifications of the disclosure, I don't think that there is much sympathy at all for the people Miller is protecting. This is not a situation where a leak helped unmask government deception, government corruption, or crimes by government officials. This is a situation where the corrupt, deceptive, and/or criminal conduct is the leak itself.

Am I surprised that Miller, her appeals exhausted, her justification for her refusal to testify (she has a release, but it might have been coerced) tenuous, and the principle for which she ostensibly stands (advancing the ability of the media to uncover sensitive stories by protecting anonymous sources) turned on its head by the actions of her sources, gets little public sympathy? Particularly at this point, where Miller's testimony appears to be desired not to gain new names, but to connect a few key dots to complete the investigation of a crime? Not at all.

Broder also notes,

Novak, who has a well-earned reputation for carrying water for his favorite conservatives, has not been prosecuted for publishing Plame's name and has refused to discuss his role in the case or his dealings, if any, with the grand jury investigating the leak.

At this point, is there actually any lingering doubt about Novak's cooperation with the Grand Jury?

The Demise of Democracy

Today, David Broder takes on the issue of redistricting - the creation of "safe districts" where the incumbent often runs unopposed, describing the account of a Florida resident.

"I pointed out to an election official at our polling place that there was no House race on the ballot, even though congressmen and women were up every two years. She immediately called the Volusia County supervisor of elections for an explanation.

"While she was on the phone . . . I was informed that my congressman, John Mica, was unopposed. I said, 'I knew that, but shouldn't his name be on the ballot, with a line below it for a write-in candidate?' That seemed traditional to me. I asked whether Mica didn't need to get at least one registered vote somewhere so he could be returned to Washington as an 'elected official' to serve another two years. The answer came back over the phone that Mica had been 'automatically reinstated in Washington.'

Last year, the Supreme Court came pretty close to declaring redistricting to be a "political issue", not ordinarily subject to judicial review. The Court was ostensibly frustrated with the fact that its prior decisions of the subject had not proved to create workable standards for the lower courts, and the growing minority argued that (absent patent illegality, such as redistricting with a racially discriminatory intention) the issue belongs in the political arena, not the courts.

Of course, as the Florida case detailed above indicates, and as the Republicans demonstrated in Texas, if you leave this to the politicians, they will do their utmost to skew the system away from democracy. (It is my cynical belief that, now that the Texas model has created a precedent, absent a legal declaration of its unconstitutionality that model will be followed by both parties in the future. But then, isn't it easier for all of us when our politicians are "automatically reinstated", and we don't have to be bothered with those unseemly elections, challengers at the polls, and recounts?)