Relevant and even prescient commentary on news, politics and the economy.

Denmark isn’t a middle-class, capitalist, entrepreneurial country? Because it has universal healthcare, free college, subsidized day care, and guaranteed family and medical leave? Really, Secretary Clinton? Really?

We are not Denmark — I love Denmark — we are the United States of America.  We would be making a grave mistake to turn our backs on what built the greatest middle class in the history of the world.

— Hillary Clinton, last night

Okay.  When I heard that, I said, “Wow.  Did she just say that Denmark isn’t a middle-class, capitalist, entrepreneurial country?  And that that’s because it has universal healthcare, free college, subsidized day care, and guaranteed family and medical leave?

That struck me as a major gaffe.  She is, after all, running for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, not the Republican Party’s.

Sanders didn’t respond to it because, if I remember right, he didn’t have the chance.  But I expected the political analysts to point this out afterward.

Silly me.  It’s being hailed as a big moment for Clinton.  By most commentators I’ve read, anyway.  But not by Slate’s Jordan Weissmann, who wrote last night:

The odd thing here is that, despite his preferred nomenclature, Bernie Sanders isn’t really all that much of a socialist. Yes, the man is certainly on the left edge of mainstream American politics. He would like to raise taxes significantly on the wealthy, to spend more on infrastructure, to break up large Wall Street banks. He’d like to make public colleges tuition-free, but he isn’t pushing to eliminate private universities. Fundamentally, the man isn’t really running on an anti-capitalist platform of nationalizing private industry. The one exception, you could argue, would be his stance in favor of single-payer health care—that would amount to a government takeover of health insurance. But that would also basically bring the U.S. in league with decidedly capitalist nations such as Canada and Great Britain.

In the end, left writer Jesse Meyerson, himself a bona fide socialist, put is most simplyin Rolling Stone: “For now, the proposals at the core of his platform—for the most part very good—are standard fare for progressive Democrats.” That comment was from July but still holds.

Which brings us to the Northern Europe comparison. Typically, policy types refer to Scandinavia’s “social democracies,” because of the robust social safety nets in countries such as Norway, Sweden, and, yes, Denmark. But it’s not as if these places are antagonistic toward capitalism and business—by some measures, they’re about as entrepreneurial and innovative as the United States (at least if you adjust for the size of their economies). Saying we shouldn’t emulate Denmark because we want to preserve America’s spirit of industriousness, as Clinton suggests, is a bit strange.

I clicked the “by some measures” link, which is to an October 2012 article by Weissmann in The Atlantic titled “Think We’re the Most Entrepreneurial Country In the World? Not So Fast.”  It’s subtitled “We’re the venture-capital capital of the world, but start-ups and young small businesses play a smaller role in America’s economy than in many other rich nations.”  A key paragraph says:

Some of the most cutting-edge young companies in the world call Silicon Valley, New York, Boston, and Austin, Texas home, partly because we have the financial backers to support them. According to the OECD, the U.S. ranks second overall in venture capital invested as a percentage of GDP, which wedges us between Israel at No. 1 and Sweden at No. 3. In sheer dollars, we dwarf everyone. That said, it’s not clear all that money floating around makes our start-ups much more creative. The OECD ranks us ninth out of 22 for the number of start-ups younger than five years old that issue patents, adjusted for the size of our economy (Denmark leads on that measure).

Weissmann’s right that Sanders isn’t really that much of a socialist.  And if that statement by Clinton is an indication—and I think it is—Clinton isn’t really that much of a progressive.  Or even that much of a Democrat.

Sanders now has the funds to start running internet and even television.  I suggest to his campaign, should anyone from it happen upon this post, that the first ad they run shows a clip of Clinton saying what I quoted her above as saying, and juxtaposing it with the statistics that Weissmann cites in that Atlantic article, and a few statistics about Denmark’s standard of living.

If Clinton believes that venture capital for innovative startups, and bank loans for ordinary small businesses, will dry up if we have universal healthcare, free college, subsidized day care, and guaranteed family and medical leave, then she should maybe actually look into it a bit.  Maybe she should even visit Denmark, which apparently on her trip there in which she came to love it didn’t notice that most of its residents weren’t living in poverty and didn’t realize that most of its businesses, large, small, and midsized, weren’t owned by the government. While she’s in the neighborhood, she also could visit Sweden and Norway.  And if she can spare the time, even Germany.

But if she can’t fit a trip overseas into her schedule, well, Canada is just north of her home state of New York.  She could even do a day trip there.

****

I mean it, Sanders campaign.  Run ads of the sort I’ve suggested.  Soon.

Tags: , , , , , Comments (21) | |

Dear Greg Sargent: “Re your Morning Plum reference to Krugman’s column today”

Update appended below.

—-

After a two-and-a-half-month hiatus from regular blogging here—most of my few posts this summer related to my passion about animal rescue and animal welfare—I’m once again feeling like posting about politics, at least more regularly than I posted this summer. (And maybe soon I’ll once again feel like posting about legal issues, but I don’t yet, so y’all who’ve been waiting for that with bated breath, well ….)

I wanted a break from all-politics-and-law-all-the-time, and (mostly) took one.  My active reentry here at AB began with two posts within the last few days—one that I thought would get some attention, but did, not; the other that I thought would get little attention, but got more than a little.

After reading emailed Greg Sargent this afternoon an embarrassingly long… eeeek … rant about that post of mine that got little attention—and, while I was at it, about two of my current political obsessions: the silly Hillary Clinton presidential-nomination anointment, by the press and (unwittingly, I think, courtesy of the press) the Democratic Party; and the silly six-year failure of our current White House standard bearer to ever trouble himself to … y’know … like … engage in any refutation of misinformation by … y’know … stating facts, coherently and specifically—I jumped all-in (to use an “in” cliché that really annoys me, but fits here) today.

But since emails from no-names are treated, I’m sure, as emails from no-names, and because, well, I’m just really in the mood right now, I’ll share my rant with all you AB readers, should any of you actually be interested:

Greg, you write this morning in the Morning Plum:

“REPUBLICANS AND THE ‘LAZY JOBLESS’:  Paul Krugman’s column today marvels at the ways GOP lawmakers continue to suggest the unemployed are choosing their plight, even as benefits have been slashed and we’re treating them with “unprecedented harshness.” But why?”

The answer to your question is, of course, that most people have no idea that unemployment compensation benefits have been dramatically slashed and are, as Krugman highlights, far lower than they have been in relation to the level of involuntary short-term and long-term unemployment in many decades.

Just as most people have no idea about one after another after another other facts concerning public policy—in Florida, for example, there is a TV ad asking people to vote for Rick Scott against Charlie Crist because “Obamacare has raised healthcare costs” and is “taking money from your pocket,” or words to that effect.

And of course most people think government employment—federal, state, local—has increased during Obama’s presidency; of course, actually, it has decreased, dramatically.

And on and on.  Which has been the case throughout Obama’s presidency.  Neither of our two current Democratic national standard bearers, Obama and Hillary Clinton, would be caught dead actually educating the public about, y’know, actual facts; neither one will speak in anything other than banal generalities.  Clinton, who probably could actually educate the public about such things as facts, instead talks incessantly about how excited she is about her daughter’s pregnancy—because, y’know, we’re all so deeply interested in this–and makes childish jokes about her failure to declare an intention to run for the presidency, deigning to add a few banalities about such things as income inequality so that we all know that her heart is in the right place.

And because the punditry insists that Dem presidential candidates are fungible, Clinton’s home free.  Clinton, Warren, and male longtime progressives such as Sherrod Brown, who can’t run because, well, Hillary Clinton probably will run, are all the same; one’s as good as the other.  After all, didn’t Clinton say in some speech back in November 2007 that, yeah, maybe income inequality has become a problem? I mean, who needs any more evidence that she’s an economics progressive than that?!

Giving speeches is, of course, what Clinton does.  In November 2007 she had been a senator for nearly seven years.  During which she voted for a really bad bankruptcy bill, and did nothing at all, at least to my knowledge (or, I think, to anyone else’s), that could matter to, say, people who aren’t upscale women trying to break corporate-hierarchy glass ceilings and such.

I’m a contributor to the blog Angry Bear, and last Friday, after learning about Boehner’s comments from Krugman’s mention of it on his blog, I posted an item about it titled “John Boehner Says the Obama Economy Has Eliminated Involuntary Unemployment!  Seriously; that’s what he said. The Dems should use this in campaign ads.”  The title was not facetious; I pointed out that Boehner’s representation of fact necessarily presumes a thriving economy in which jobs are available for anyone who wants one; in other words, we really have full employment now.  My post gained no attention, best as I can tell, so I’d like to see someone whose blog posts do get attention make the point—because it is an important one. Isn’t it?  My post is [here].

Apologies for this lengthy rant.

Beverly Mann

As for Obama, coherency and specificity, which require actual explanation rather than sound-bite-speak, are just not his thing; I understand that.  By which I mean that I understand that that is so—and by which I don’t mean that I understand why it is so, although I suspect that the culprit is a stunning lack of mental agility coupled with an apparently overriding belief that he need not do anything by way of outreach, education and persuasion, that he doesn’t really feel like doing.

As for Clinton … well … speaking in specifics is not her thing, either.  It doesn’t pay well, and policy specifics would entail her actually learning specifics (better late than never, but, whatever) and maybe even proposing specifics of her own.  Okay, specifics that someone in her quarter-century “orbit” (the media’s euphemism for closed circle of decades-long Clinton operatives) learning specifics.  Sorta like what Warren and Sherrod Brown have done by themselves!

We’re all, of course, tremendously happy for Clinton and her husband that they’re about to become grandparents.  It’s just that we’re interested in other things, as well.  And just that other thing that she’s interested in: ridiculous, cutesy, will-she-or-won’t-she games.

I’m a progressive who cares about more than 1980s-and ‘90s-era women’s issues. (And not just because I’m aware that it is no longer the 1980s or ‘90s; some of those issues remain potent and important, but they are not the end-all-and-be-all of progressive economic concerns, some of which actually have to do with men as well as women.)  I don’t want any more generic, look-at-who-I-am-rather-than-what-I’ve-actually-done theater-of-the-ridiculous. Been there, done that. (Okay, I was never a big fan of Obama, but supported him against Clinton because I feared another triangulator president—one who would be hemmed in by her husband’s 1990s policy choices, no less. One who still is hemmed in by her husband’s 1990s policy choices.)

I’ll end this rant by asking this question: Why have the progressives who want so badly to see a Warren draft not trying to encourage, say, a Sherrod Brown draft?  Wrong gender? Really?? Warren’s popularity comes not from her gender but instead from her economic population and deep knowledge of, emersion in, and passion for actual specific policy issues.  Brown has that, too.  And he, unlike Warren, may simply be waiting for someone to ask him to run.

Take a look, progressives. I’m serious.  It’s time now to support an economic progressive who’s the real deal, not someone’s who really just a political celebrity.  My dream ticket is Brown and Jeff Merkley.  Both have been in the economic-progressive trenches for decades. Neither is the spouse of a former president, even a popular and still-popular one who actually knows how to make a point without using a denegrating, condescending manner to do it.

That said, if what Dems are looking for, and if Dem presidential candidates really are fungible, then how about Kim Kardashian?  Who knows?  She may even be a genuine economic progressive.

We economic progressives finally have the ear of a large segment of the population.  And we’re going to squander it by nominating for president someone who’s little more than just a professional political celebrity?  Why?  Seriously; why?

—-

UPDATE: Turns out that I’m a few days late to this party, at least as it’s host.  Molly Ball posted a piece on Sept. 19 on The Atlantic’s website titled “Does Hillary Clinton Have Anything to Say?” Ball reaches the same conclusion that I do: The anwer is, no.

But there are, as I noted above, national politicians in addition to Elizabeth Warren, who do.

I mean, look: Just because your husband was a popular president in the 1990s doesn’t mean that you get to be the Democractic presidential nominee yourself.  Your prsumption to the contrary notwithstanding.

Although Molly Ball, Bernie Sanders and I are, thus far, the only partiers. Want to join us?

Updated 9/22 at 4:10 p.m.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Comments (17) | |

Justice Kennedy Reads Angry Bear! Yup. There’s No Other Plausible Explanation for His Affirmative Action Opinion Today.

A longer-than-planned post on today’s Supreme Court opinion on state-college-admissions affirmative action programs.  (I’m up in Michigan’s Thumb region, sans cable and regular web service, and using my phone as a Wi Fi hotspot via the PdaNet app. I can attest that PdaNet is awesome.)  Here it is:

The headline on Politico reads, “SCOTUS passes on big affirmative action decision.”  That headline does not really sum up the opinion,* but I’m not surprised at the ruling—either its result or that it took an unusually long time for the issuance of the opinion; the case was argued in the first week of the Court’s term in early October.  It’s a (very) safe bet that neither the result nor the delay in deciding the case was the result that the Fab Five had planned on when they agreed to hear the case and when the case was argued there.

But, well, stuff happens.  And, first things first.  And first—and foremost—for these folks, I believe, is the gutting of two key, interdependent sections, Sections 4 and 5**, of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), because that is the way to help Republicans in national elections.  And the stuff that happened in this instance was the oral argument at the Court back in March (I think) in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder, the case that the 5-4 crowd has planned to use as its “vehicle”—a military tank—to gut that section of the VRA.

As I wrote in AB back then, comments that Kennedy made during the argument would, if adopted by him (he will be the author of the opinion in Shelby County; bet on it, quickly, tonight, before the opinion is released tomorrow!) would inescapably conflict, in two respects, with the ruling that Kennedy planned to write in Fisher.  And, yes, although absolutely everyone but me said Roberts would write the opinion in Fisher, Kennedy was the author of the Fisher opinion.  (Okay, one of his law clerks was, but without attribution, of course.)

During the argument in Shelby County, Kennedy made two things clear: First, that states are people, too (just like corporations!), and therefore are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause.  Funny, but who knew that the Fourteenth Amendment, whose express and sole historic purpose was to protect individuals (i.e., people) from denial of due process of law and the equal protection of the law by states.  Violation of constitutional rights by states, not by the federal government against states, which heretofore had no constitutional due process or equal protection rights.  Originalism and textualism only matter sometimes.

Second—and this is, I think, as I said in my post last spring, the real key to the conflict between what these five wanted to do in Fisher and what they want to, and almost certainly will, do in Shelby County—is that Kennedy and Scalia think that now that African Americans have real political power, they aren’t entitled to special protections.  Hey, Obama won, didn’t he?!  They can just use their political power to ensure that there are no improper barriers to voting and to having their vote not be improperly and deliberately diluted into meaninglessness in federal, state and local legislative elections.  Hey, Obama won, didn’t he?!

Which, as I said in my earlier post, raises the obvious question in Fisher of why the white UT applicants can’t just use their political power to have the legislature change the college-admissions statute.  Unless, of course, the parents of white upper-middle-class high school students (which is what plaintiff Abigail Fisher was) have less political power in Texas than African Americans do.

Kennedy suggested during the Shelby County argument that states and localities could honor the fact of their history of racial discrimination by, say, erecting a statue of a pre-civil-rights-era black citizen who was known to have been improperly denied access to the polls.  I suggested in my AB post that that could work as the solution in Fisher, too: a statue of Abigail Fisher, along with an explanatory metal placard, in the UT’s quad.

I said at the time that I thought it was poetic justice that Fisher and Shelby County were being decided in the same Court term.  The poetry, if not the justice, will become apparent, I’m pretty darn sure, when the opinion in Shelby County is released.  Probably tomorrow, probably along with the two same-sex-marriage opinions, probably to be drowned in news coverage by the tsunami of reportage and commentary on the latter cases.

Will I be humbly eating some of these words tomorrow?  We’ll see.  I mean, you never know.  Maybe Kennedy doesn’t read Angry Bear, after all.

UPDATE: SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Denniston just posted an indepth summary and analysis of Fisher, here.

*Originally, this sentence read, “That about sums it up, and I’m not surprised, either at the result or that it took an unusually long time for the issuance of the opinion; the case was argued in the first week of the Court’s term in early October.”  I have not yet read the opinion (and probably won’t do so today), and was relying on the very early reports about it.  But I’ve amended that sentence in light of Lyle Denniston’s detailed article.  The bottom line, I think, is that the likely substance of the  impending 5-4 opinion in Shelby County saved affirmative action, for now, to the extent that Fisher did save affirmative action.

SECOND UPDATE: Here’s NYT Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak’s take on Fisher. He points out that the opinion is brief.  Just think of all that time these folks wasted in writing the original, pre-Shelby-County-argument, drafts of the opinion, the concurrences and dissents.  Time that the justices could have used instead to give a few more speeches at law schools and nonprofit organizations during their many, many, many fall, winter and spring breaks, some of them several weeks’ duration.  Their part-time job is exhausting, I realize, and they could have used the additional diversion (and speaking fees and junkets).  Oh, well.  Maybe next year, when there’s another affirmative action case on the Court’s docket.

THIRD UPDATE: **Originally, that sentence said that one key section, Section 5, of the VRA was at issue, and did not mention Section 4.  The Court issued its 5-4 opinion, written by Roberts, a few minutes ago, and SCOTUSblog says the opinion strikes down Section 4 but says the court makes no ruling on Section 5, and that Ginsburg says in her dissent that the striking down of Section 4 renders Section 5 dormant.  Section 5 is the section that requires certain states, counties and localities to first “pre-clearance” from a federal court or from the Justice Dept. before altering voting districts or other access-to-the-polls and weight-of-a-vote matters.  Section 4 is the section that creates the formula for determining which states, counties and localities are subject to the Section 5 pre-clearance requirement.

The effect of striking down Section 4 is to nullify Section 5 until Congress enacts a new formula to replace the now-void Section 4 one. Or until hell freezes over.  Whichever comes first.

Tags: , , , , , , , , Comments (2) | |

Richard Williamson and John Bolton are Jewish! Recent converts, apparently. [Updated.]

Are Richard Williamson and John Bolton—two of Romney’s three main foreign-policy advisors, and reportedly the two most influential—Jewish?  Really?

Or are they simply under the influence of Dan Senor and other manipulative neocon Jews?  Sorta like Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were.

Oh, please.

—-

WARNING: Every word of the above post except the last two is said facetiously.

But this is not: The Dylan Byers Politico post that I link to has this quote:

“[The] weirdest part of the anti-semitic tropes on the [Maureen] Dowd column is how lazy they are,” Max Fisher, an editor at The Atlantic who is leaving to launch a foreign policy blog at the Washington Post, tweeted.

Apparently, mimicking Mitt Romney’s pot-calling-the-kettle-black habit has become quite the thing this season among conservatives.  Or maybe Fisher did investigate and has learned that Williamson and Bolton really haveconverted to Judaism.

Oh, and by the way: I’m Jewish.  Happy new year.

—–

UPDATE: Much to my surprise, a link to this post appears on the Jewish American Heritage Month website, at http://www.jewishamericanheritagemonth.com/jewish/richard-williamson-and-john-bolton-are-jewish-recent-converts.php.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , Comments (5) | |