White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called a bunch of liberal activists “retarded” for running ads against Democrats who opposed progressive aspects of healthcare, and the Wall Street Journal of all places, spilled the beans. Now Sarah Palin is upset because her son has Down Syndrome and she wants Rahm Emanuel fired—just this once, I agree with her.

Not because “retarded” disparages mentally handicapped people—he wasn’t talking about mentally handicapped people—rather he should lose his job because he’s an idiot for alienating his own political base.

What Emanuel probably meant to say is that it isn’t prudent to upset senators who are needed to pass healthcare reform. While true, the progressive political ads were actually pretty smart. What is not smart, however, is to upset the people who vote for you.

When you do that, you tend to lose office. That’s what Rahm Emanuel seems to not understand. He’s fixated on moving pieces around in the Senate. His thought process must be: “How can I get Senator X to do Y when he is beholden to Special Interests A, B, C, D, E…etc.?” Great. But politicians are ultimately beholden to the people who vote, or would vote for them. Piss off the people, they don’t vote for you, and you lose office.

Within the Democratic Party itself, “liberals” outnumber “centrists” by a wide margin. “Liberals” also tend to vote more heavily in primaries. So if a Democratic senator seriously upsets the “liberals” that’s a problem.

Liberals can mobilize against the aforementioned senator, and knock him out in the primary. And what is the only real goal of any good politician? To stay in power. The threat of losing power will have a greater impact on a senator than any sort of cajoling would. Senators do what lobbyists tell them to because lobbyists give them money that they need to win elections.

If liberals can present a bigger threat than a lack of campaign donations, then senators will tow the liberal line rather than the lobbyist line.

So why are the liberals “retarded?” The liberals want their agenda items to pass. By mobilizing their base they can easily unseat whatever Democratic legislator they want.

Why shouldn’t they run ads scaring the hell out “centrist” democrats, so as to encourage them to tow the liberal line? That’s the line they want. Would centrists otherwise do what the liberals want them to? Of course not—that’s why liberals are upset in the first place. Centrists are not liberal enough for the people who vote for them. Rahm Emanuel is playing stupid politics.

The “people” vote in elections. They may be susceptible to advertisements, paid for by lobbyists—but they aren’t lemmings. You ignore their concerns and interests and they destroy you. That is the way it works in a democracy.

Does Rahm Emanuel get that? Does he think that by “pandering” to the “liberal base” he’ll lose the “moderates”? The moderates also wanted a public health insurance option and who was he pandering to then? The crazy minority who didn’t want the public health insurance option? No. He’s pandering to craven, self-interested senators who would fold in a second if they thought they’d lose power by rejecting their base.

People who could fire Rahm should be asking themselves: why do people hate the healthcare bill now? Why did more than 60% of Americans support a public health insurance option and only 30% or so support the present bill? Could it be that Americans don’t like corrupt, back handed deals with craven special interests without any visible, overt benefit to themselves? No! No!

Actually, yes. Yes! Yes! That’s the reason. The bill now exudes sleaze and most Americans don’t like that. Americans want their government to do something for them, or not do anything at all. It’s either, “a bill that helps me and seems on the level,” or, “no deal.” And in this instance, the people have chosen the latter option.

People who could fire Rahm should also be asking themselves: why, in a New York-CBS Poll yesterday did only 8% of Americans want their congressperson re-elected. Why did 79% of Americans think special interests controlled the United States Congress? Because of people like Rahm Emanuel, who work within a broken, corrupt system, but have no intention of fixing it.

Does President Obama want to be perceived the same way the Congress is perceived? Does he want an 8% approval rating?

What Rahm says is, “Great, let them hate me, let me be the bad guy, they still love the president after all.”

Assuming, anyway, that they still do love him. But even if they do, it may be because they still feel the President has their best intentions in mind. What happens in a year, when he still hasn’t done what they want him to do—when he’s still beholden to special interests and when he still seems too weak to do most things he promised to do? What happens then? Will people still love him? Will people go out and vote for him in droves?

The Obama Administration should get the message: Get rid of Rahm Emanuel.

Yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow.

Yesterday.

Replace him with some guy like Howard Dean.

Howard Dean won an enormous number of seats in 2006 as head of the DNC. They should get rid of Geithner too while they’re at it. He’s not evil but he is stupid (despite his education).

The economy did collapse under his watch. Why employ a stupid person when you can hire a smart guy like Joe Stiglitz? Not to mention people hate Geithner as much as (if not more than) they hate Rahm.

Congress, the Beltway, has lost touch with reality, and although Rahm Emanuel may be in touch with the Beltway, that won’t do his party a whole lot of good when election time comes. Did President Obama ever want to stick up to the special interests? Did he think he could both be a conciliator and an agent of change?

I can see how one might say: “Look, Rahm is evil, but he’s a necessary evil,” but Democrats are already losing seats on Rahm Emanuel’s watch, and the primary hasn’t even happened yet. Why does Obama keep him? Does Obama like him? Does Obama want lobbyist money for the next president election? Remember who raised his money the first time around? Individual donors—people who are pissed off at Rahm Emanuel-tactics and will be less inclined to give next time unless they change.

Rahm needs to go. It’s not only good politics. It’s just smart.

In a popularity contest, the most popular person tends to win, and to the extent that politics is a popularity contest, the Obama administration should be worried.
There is a growing popular backlash in this country, one that is neither expressly centrist nor liberal and composed of a diverse set of people. Though they differ on the best ways to fix our problems, all of them are angry at, and alienated by, a government that seems to lack ideas, ambition, and drive to reform a broken system.

The people who really hate Obama aren’t populists, because populists are currently in the majority and populists didn’t hate Obama to begin with. No one voted for Obama only to, post-election, deem him a dangerous, radical Nazi-communist who would take away his guns and freedoms. Such people voted against Obama to begin with, and they lost—badly. The people you saw at summer town hall rallies, and still see teabagging, are a fairly marginalized minority. They may claim to be “average Americans,” but they are not. The are a radical fringe that harbors an overly narrow, dangerously simplistic definition of what it means to be “American.”

Most Americans voted for Obama largely because they disapproved of the Bush Administration. The real intransigents on the right, meanwhile, are overwhelmingly white, mostly rural, and mostly southern. They are, literally, a dying breed. The average age of a Bill O’Reilly viewer is 71, and the average FOX viewer 65. It’s worth asking if FOX News is so highly rated because many, if not most, of its viewers are retired. The “teabaggers” can afford to go out and rally because they are also largely retired. Though this demographic must be factored into the political equation in the short run, with every passing election cycle more of it, callous though this may sound, dies off. It is a scared group, one that doesn’t know who to blame for its frantic anger. But these teabaggers are dying, and they are bound to diminish in political importance. On the other side of the demographic picture, 66% of people under the age of 29 voted for Obama. It would be suicide to run a national ticket on “traditional small town, small government values” today, let alone in fifteen years.

According to a variety of the most popular polls, populists—real populists—are independents and party members who vote across party lines. Independents, at this point in time, constitute approximately thirty percent of the American electorate. Most are religious and believe in fairness, hard work, and giving to the needy. They favor gun rights, although not fanatically, and are not inhospitable to current tax rates. Independents also support most government institutions—including Medicare, Social Security, the military, and public education. Most wanted a government-run health insurance option, and similarly favor a government that helps to create jobs.

But most don’t have any particular die-hard values—they’re susceptible to appeals to their self-interest, and they vote for candidates who they believe will improve their quality of life. Independents voted for Obama en masse because they thought he was smart, reasonable, calm, and would end the Republican-instigated economic nosedive. Now, however, Independents are turning against Obama. Why?

There are arguably three reasons for this shift. First, Obama isn’t doing a great job. Second, he seems a bit like the last guy. And third, he seems more loyal to “Wall Street” than to “Main Street.”

That’s right! Main Street. Obama goes to Akron, Ohio and Terre Haute, Indiana, and he talks to “regular folk.” They tell him: “Mr. President, we’re hurting, unemployment is over 10% and Wall Street got a big chunk of our money. Why is Wall Street being bailed out and why are we getting nothing?”

And Obama has unconvincing answers, especially given that he’s kept Ben Bernanke and Tim Geithner on as top economic advisors. Independents are beginning to think that Obama is either sleazy or incompetent, while Progressives are angry because he hasn’t done anything progressive—in short, Obama hasn’t made any systematic changes. The Republicans have already turned their backs on their former laissez-faire economic policies through TARP, and the only thing Obama has done that they might not have is the “stimulus thing.” Many people can’t see how deficit spending might be necessary. Not enough of the money spent by the Obama administration has gone to train people or build schools, roads, dams, etc. The irony may be that Obama chose not to launch “direct” government projects out of the fear that the people would consider his agenda “socialist.”

And this has electoral significance. How did Scott Brown win in my home state, the progressive state of Massachusetts? A bunch of independents voted for him. Why?

Well, mostly because Martha Coakley is a jerk. She didn’t run a campaign until the last week of the election, imagining that it would cost too much money that she could have used after she won. Coakley demonstrated utter disdain for her electorate, at one point saying she didn’t need to shake peoples’ hands outside of Fenway because it was cold and she knew the Deputy Director of Education. As District Attorney, she voted not to parole the most likely wrongly convicted individuals caught up in the “satanic daycare abuse” witch hunt in the 80’s—they’re still languishing in jail thanks to her. She’s morally suspect, and “regular folks” identified that in the election.

Scott Brown, on the other hand, ran essentially as a pro-choice, moderate Republican—an Independent, for all intents and purposes—to people who already have a state government-run healthcare system they like, one previously supported by Brown. People don’t like Obama’s current healthcare plan because it is seems tainted by sleazy backroom deals, and appears convoluted, creepy, and incoherent. Simply put, Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown because he was “the other guy.”

Obama should know the following: he is not invincible, and must use government in a way that convinces the people of its utility. People still like Obama, and he would still crush most Republicans in a televised debate. After all, an angry electorate would yet recognize a cookie cutter, socially regressive, pro-Wall Street Republican as a Bush clone. People want results. But a smart, reasonable-seeming moderate Republican could easily defeat Obama unless the unemployment rate seriously drops and Wall Street is seriously regulated. Someone like Mitch Daniels, the Governor of Illinois, might be able to pull off such a defeat.

Washington Democrats need to identify the degree to which they’re misstepping by ignoring independent and progressive populism. After Scott Brown’s success, Republicans will find a way to get a moderate on their ticket. Unless things change, they may defeat Obama. And if he loses, he will go down in history as one of the most pathetic incompetents in American history: a fake “conciliator” with no agenda other than to maintain the status quo. In twenty, thirty years, when all the teabaggers are dead, and this country is primarily liberal and independent, we will look back at the Obama Administration as the last heyday of the American
conservative movement.

I have always believed in the free markets. And after the recent financial crisis, I still do. But I’ve never believed that free markets could work in lieu of government.

Recent events have strengthened this view. We should finally accept the fact that the financial system is by necessity “socialist.” At this point, the question is not so much, “can the free markets work without government regulation?” It is more, “We know the financial system cannot work independent of government. How can we ensure market regulation serves the interests of the American people?”

One can look back at the history of the financial system—Wall Street has never functioned independent of government. The reason is not that government has always sought to meddle in an otherwise stable system. Rather, Wall Street has proven incapable of surviving independent of government. And every time Wall Street collapsed, it was the financiers who demanded the government intervene to save them. This should be common knowledge taught in history class, but it is often not.

The first extreme case of government involvement in the financial markets came in 1913. The Wilson Administration created the American Central Bank, also known as the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve, funded by tax dollars, was instituted at the request of bankers in order to offset the then recent, near catastrophic runs on banks.

The most commonly known example, however, is the so-called, “New Deal” legislation. The “New Deal” was enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s. In addition to public work programs designed to provide employment, the New Deal legislation included provisions to check speculation on Wall Street.

The New Deal included another blanket form of protection to the banking sector—the Federal Government would provide insurance for a certain fixed amount of money held in private banks. Even if a bank were to collapse, Americans would not be left penniless. Before the recent near-catastrophe, this sum was $100,000. The figure has now been increased to $200,000, providing additional security. Most of the economy functions well without the government. Indeed, the central management of economies has proven disastrous, as illustrated by the Soviet Union. But, the failure to regulate the financial sector in particular has reaped virtually the same ruinous results. Every time Wall Street has attempted to deregulate, the house of cards collapsed.

The TARP bailout is a recent example of government intervention to save the financial sector. The bailout gave $700 billion in emergency loans to banks teetering on the verge of ruin. As has traditionally been the case, it was the bankers who asked for this money. In the free markets it is sink or swim, eat or be eaten, just like a nature documentary. The banks did not want to sink. In this instance, the banks were so large they could not be allowed to sink. As Americans’ private savings are either held in banks or invested in the stock market, the collapse of the financial system is unthinkable.

Conservative ideology stresses the independence of the free markets. One may reason that capitalism obstructed by government is not true capitalism. Non-capitalist economies do not work, and so we must avoid government at all costs. Of course, if this logic holds, there is no advanced capitalist economy in the world. All those wealthy, government-heavy nations in Europe have actually failed. They just haven’t told anyone. By the same logic, the American financial sector is socialist. For the last hundred years, there has been a central, quasi government-run bank with federal regulations and mandates. Some might argue that the financial system would actually work better without government intervention, but this logic has never survived the test of reality. There has never been a wealthy, prosperous nation without substantial government regulation and involvement in the economy. Ever. Perhaps there is some way to create a purely capitalist, rationally self-regulating financial sector.

This, however, remains a purely hypothetical undertaking. In all likelihood it is a pipe dream. No reasonable economist accepts the ideology of the “free market lovers” on the right. From Paul Krugman to Alan Greenspan, there is a consensus that the financial sector needs the government.

Now that we know the financial sector is socialist, it is important that we get socialism right. Socialism should serve the interests of the people who pay for it. American tax dollars paid for the bailout. The banks have become a product, just like a car an American family might purchase. In both cases, the consumer expects a useful, workable product. With Wall Street, this means regulations designed to protect consumers—bans on predatory loaning practices, limits on derivative trading, mortgage rate limits, and the like.

The market is complex, but there are ways to make it work for a more common interest. President Obama should understand this.

There is increasing populist rage directed at him from both sides of the political spectrum. The right is angry that the bank bailouts happened in the first place (despite the fact that they happened under a Republican president). They don’t understand that without the bailouts; the country would now be experiencing the second Great Depression.

Most “liberals” do get that the bailout was needed, but are frustrated at the lack of the promised post bailout reforms that could prevent another, or a worsening of this current, economic crisis.

Let’s learn our lesson for once. Let’s not return to the laissez faire, “leave the markets alone and everything will magically work out” attitude. But let’s also not bail out the finance sector unconditionally. Let’s not create a situation where banks can do whatever they want, until they fail, at which point they know the government will save them.

Without substantial market reform, this whole sorry state of affairs will continue, abuses will be unceasing, and it will happen all over again.

In Berlin this November, Germans are partying like it’s 1989. Well, almost. This time there are no sledgehammers, cranes, or bewildered communist soldiers. The only wall falling is a line of a thousand giant Styrofoam dominoes, painted by European school children.

Many Cold War notables were there as was the ever-popular Lech Walesa who led the Solidarity movement that unraveled the communist state in Poland. The list of attendees also included Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet Union’s last premier, whose glasnost reforms set the stage for the wall’s collapse.

On November 9th, 1989, an East German official decreed that civilians could “immediately” pass into West Germany and the Berlin Wall came crumbling down.
Joyous East Berliners and their compatriots in the west swept towards the wall.

Cameras rolled as hammers began knocking off concrete. The wall was already covered in anarchistic graffiti that lent the wall quixotic absurdity. The otherwise oppressive monument had become a piece of post-modernist art.

The shockwaves of the wall’s collapse were felt across the world. By then the wall had become emblematic of more than a long line of concrete and concerta wire. It was the ultimate symbol of communist repression. East Germany had become a literal prison, and its communist government required a physical wall to keep its citizens from escaping.

Oh, how times have changed. Berlin’s reunification was only one narrative in the revolutions of 1989, but the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago joins Tiananmen Square as defining and world-changing moments in recent history. Who knows when the course of history will change next?

If and when Berlin-style manmade barriers in Korea or Cyprus fall too, they’ll be comparing it to the magic of Berlin. Hopefully, though, it won’t take another twenty years.

Merriam’s Dictionary defines patriotism as: “love or devotion to one’s country.” But how do we define people who deeply love a part of their country—the part that’s exactly like them—but utterly loathe all the other parts? What happens when most of their country consists of ‘the others’ they so detest? Are these people patriots?

Ultra-conservatives believe they are patriots and consider their opponents unpatriotic. Many, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, say that conservatives are the ones who inhabit “real America” and their foes are merely citizens of “the fake America.” However, ultra-conservatives are not the majority in this country. If ultra-cons don’t identify with “fake America,” they don’t identify with most of America.

Ultra-conservative ideology is not nationalist to begin with—it is primarily religious and cultural. Ultrra-cons do not recognize the real “nation” per se, as it exists beyond their dogma or culture. They are obsessed with the idea of Christianity’s predominant or exclusive role in American politics.
Ultra-conservatives falsely believe that America is a “Christian nation.” However, as the Constitution states,“There shall be no establishment of religion”—the U.S. is not a Christian nation. America’s founders were Christian, but they did not found this country on Christian ideology and did not want to live in a theocracy. In fact, our founders were much less religious than most people of the time.

All of this is not to confuse ultra-conservative dogma with more mainstream conservative ideology, which is indeed quite nationalist in a way that even offsets many liberals. However, the Republican Party is also confused about the distinction between mainstream and fringe. This has separated the party into two and may perhaps be a reason why, according to most polls, only around 20 percent of Americans identify as Republicans. Moderate Republicans think the party is too conservative and ultra-conservatives think that the party is too moderate, both becoming independents.

Most ultra-cons do not “hate America,” although most do hate “the government,” which may be a mental surrogate for the larger country. But when 20 percent of a country distrusts or dislikes the remaining 80 percent, it is clear who the anti-patriots are.