a few short notes/observations

I finally got the new Merle Haggard album, I Am What I Am. Amazon has it for $5, and it's worth a whole lot more. I love it. The Bakersfield Sound lives on.

I find the whole Sherrod Affair so shameless, so galling-- both on the part of Breibart and Fox, and on the part of the administration for rolling over, again, for that game. It is so depressing. I'm in complete agreement with the sentiment expressed here.

The Tour de France was enjoyable this year mostly because of the building momentum behind Lance Armstrong impending fall from grace. I can't think of a more arrogant or deserving person. If you're looking for a charity supporting cancer research and advocacy, I'd suggest looking for one that puts more of its money into the cause than LAF and Livestrong, which spends 45% of its proceeds on solicitation. (This is, admittedly, better than the egregious 60% of the ACS.) Maybe consider giving to the V Foundation. Plus, you won't be supporting Pharmstrong and Nike's branding projects.

I was completely disappointed with the World Cup finals-- an ugly game that highlighted the extent to which soccer on the international pitch is dominated by a culture of cheating. And by that I mean, dominated by a culture of getting away with as much hacking and as much acting as one can short of a red card. It was a let down after a pretty enjoyable tournament overall.

I blame Bill Clinton, the DLC, and the whole New Democrat strategy of the 1990s for the complete lack of effectiveness of the Obama administration. Whatever his administration has accomplished has been so severely damaged by executive and congressional ineptitude that I seriously doubt the Obama presidency will have a positive historical legacy beyond the (admittedly important) symbolism of having elected a black president. Controlling the White House and both houses of Congress, and yet being incapable of standing up to the posturing, racially charged rhetoric, and economic incompetence of the same people who gave us a global recession the size of the 1930s... Only the democrats could accomplish this. And November will bring a tide turning in the favor of the worst political impulses of this country. And BP. And Afghanistan. And unemployment.

It leaves me feeling so exasperated that I find it hard to write a post whenever I feel moved to do so, which is usually daily.

From Colony to Superpower, Part XX

This is the twentieth and last chapter of Herring's book. Rob's review is here.

Herring covers the 1991-2007 period in this chapter. It's really an excellent chapter overall. I'm much more interested in talking about Clinton than Bush. This blog and a million others have covered Bush foreign policy for years. It was a disaster in every single aspect. He comes across as bad in Herring's book as he does everyplace else.

Both Rob and Herring make an important point about Clinton--he was totally unprepared to deal with foreign policy issues. This isn't too surprising--he was a member of the Democratic Party who came of age during the Vietnam War; for a generation, the Democrats basically lacked a coherent foreign policy. In addition, few Americans had a sense of where American foreign policy should go with the Cold War rug pulled out from under us. I remember being hopeful that the U.S. would use its tremendous power to do good in the world, ending conflicts and improving people's lives. Boy was I naive.

I do think both Rob and Herring underplay the one way Clinton was active in foreign policy--globalization and free trade. Herring discusses a bit, but it gets significantly less play than Somalia, Bosnia, Israel, and Rwanda. This isn't surprising, but is unfortunate. One of Clinton's most important policy decisions in his first year of office was to sign NAFTA. Free trade and neoliberalism became the hallmark of American foreign policy during the Clinton years. From Southeast Asia to South America; from Mexico to Russia, untrammelled capitalism ruled the day. The U.S. decided to use its power to promote its own business interests. It did so with the most vigor in Latin America and the reaction against this in the last 10 years suggests how significantly the U.S. overplayed its hand.

Of course, neoliberalism was not just an economic idea. Politics mattered too. "Our Brand is Crisis," a documentary about James Carville's political firm intervening on the behalf of a neoliberal presidential candidate in Bolivia is a great document of American foreign policy in the Cold War era. Popular will, the betterment of the people, and fighting poverty played secondary roles at best to promoting the interests of multinational corporations.

The inability of Democrats to have a cohesive foreign policy after 1968 was a real problem. Clinton provided little leadership on foreign policy issues during his first term. Even AIDS prevention programs were underfunded. While part of this was a general triumphalist turning of our back on the world by the nation's populace as a whole, no foreign policy platform came out of the White House to direct American foreign policy. A large percentage of the Democratic congressional delegation and progressive leaders around the country had a knee-jerk "no" response to most uses of the American military. The problem with this became clear in the run-up to the Iraq War, when more centrist Democrats didn't want to flatly say no to the president despite reservations about the war, but also had no alternative arguments. John Kerry's inability to articulate an effective response to Bush and to swiftboating in 2004 is emblematic of this problem. The disaster of the Bush administration seems to have changed this and while we may not yet have an "Obama Doctrine," we surely have a Democratic president quite comfortable in the foreign policy world for the first time since Lyndon Johnson.

I'll have more conclusions on the book as a whole in coming days.

A little bit of perspective

It seems, for the most part, people are giving Obama the benefit of the doubt on the economy-- as well they should, since this crisis was years in the making, and fixing something is often more complicated than breaking it in the first place. Unemployment keeps ticking upwards, and is often the last part of the economy to recover. For a little bit of perspective, we can look at the data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and see how the horrible, miserable Carter years compared to the glorious Renaissance that comprised Reagan's reign.

Reagan won the 1980 election, when the unemployment rate was a salty 7.1% (a full pecent lower than the February 2009 rate of 8.1%). Unemployment rose in 1981 and 1982 (topping out at 9.7%), then slowly started to fall (9.6% in 1983, 7.5% in 1984, 7.2% in 1985). It wasn't until 1986-- six years into Reagan's term-- that unemployment was lower than it was at the end of the Carter administration, and then only by one-tenth of a percent (7.1% in 1986).

Clinton inherited a high unemployment rate as well-- in fact, higher than Reagan inherited from the Carter administration (7.5%). The Clinton administration enjoyed a quick and steep drop in unemployment to some of the lowest levels since the early 1950's-- 6.9% in 1993, 6.1% in 1994, 5.6% in 1995, 5.4% in 1996, continuing to drop until 2000, which had an unemployment rate of 4.0%. Every single year of the George W. Bush administration had higher unemployment than the last three years of Clinton.

So this may take some time to fix. This recession is more like the one in the early 1980's than the early 1990's, but I'm confident that Obama will get the ship turned around faster than Reagan did. And if Reagan can attain nearly canonized status by overseeing six years of unemployment higher than the Jimmy Carter years, Obama should be on the $20 bill if he can fix this mess in two or three years.

Elections Have Consequences: Environmental Edition

The benefits of a Democratic government are already appearing:

The Senate approved a motion to move forward with the omnibus lands bill on Sunday, a bill that would protect more than 2 million acres of wilderness in nine states.

The bill combines more than 150 separate pieces of legislation on wilderness areas and other federal lands, and was put together last Congress. It has been repeatedly held up by procedural stalling from several Republican senators, most notably Oklahoma's Tom Coburn. The cloture motion, which passed 66-12, allows the Senate to proceed to debate.

Excellent.

The bill will also create the Bill Clinton National Historic Site in Hope, Arkansas. Interesting.

The full text of the bill is here. It's pretty interesting, particularly the potential for future national park sites covering different aspects of American history, including Matewan, for those of you who have seen the movie.

Reevaluating Carter, Reagan, and Clinton on the Environment

Historians' views of presidents change over time, depending on the circumstances of the present. In my view (which I think is becoming increasingly obvious) the key question of the 21st century is the environment, broadly defined. This includes pollution, climate change, energy supplies, urban issues, etc. Rising oil prices may not feel like an environmental issue, but of course it is given the larger importance of oil production, what could replace it, and how cheap oil has allowed us to so drastically alter nature.

How will a new environmental interpretation affect how we view presidents? The one president such a view clearly helps is Jimmy Carter. So often, Carter is seen as a bad president. McCain called him "lousy" recently. I wonder how McCain would compare Bush to Carter? Anyway, while Carter had his weak points, particularly in his handling of the Iran hostage crisis, he was a real visionary on environmental issues. I believe that future historians will see Carter as a man far ahead of his time, telling Americans things they needed to hear. Carter had the vision to change America before it was too late, too get us off a strictly petroleum based energy economy before the problem became unmangable. But this was not the lesson the nation wanted to hear.

And that leads us to presidents whose reputations will be sullied as a result of their environmental policies. No one will suffer as bad as Ronald Reagan. His destruction of the solar energy industry was disgusting. Across the board, Reagan's environmental policies were terrible, but his rejection of everything Carter tried to do will be seen as one of his most important legacies. The perception of Reagan will decline for many reasons I believe, but none more important than his horrible energy policy.

I also believe that Bill Clinton will suffer on this account. Clinton was great at the big environmental acts that garnered him tons of headlines. He was great on national parks for instance. And obviously, he was better than Reagan in all aspects of environmental policy. But Clinton also happily supported American automakers' investment in trucks and SUV's in the 1990s. He took no steps to reduce the nation's dependence on oil, to solve untrammeled growth, or to prepare the nation for living in the 21st century environment.

Things I Don't Get (IV): Personalizing the Primaries

Prior to Obama's victory, much was made of Obama-supporters' willingness to support Clinton vs. a major unwillingness of Clinton supporters to support Obama in the event of his victory. Although there's plenty of time for this to still cool off, thus far it's been pretty rancorous still. When watching Clinton's speech last Saturday (in which she unequivocally urged her supporters to support Obama), there were noticeable boos and thumbs-down signs given when she mentioned his name. People who would easily identify with a majority of Obama's positions if it were a generic "candidate-A or candidate-B" issue are vehemently against him because he beat their candidate, even diving to such amazingly stupid lows in reasoning as to claim that they want to do "what's best for America," and if that means voting for McCain (an aside: it doesn't mean that), then so be it. Really - the vitriol is so fierce among some Clinton supporters, they seem absolutely blinded in fits of pure selfishness that their candidate was not the victor, and so they're (at least right now) more willing to fuck the U.S. over for at least another 4 years by voting for McCain instead of supporting the candidate whose views are far more in line with their own.

I personally cannot ever remember (or even remember hearing from others about) a time when politics became so personalized. That's really what seems to be at hand here: that Clinton supporters have so closely tied their support for her to their own being that her loss is like a personal assault upon her supporters themselves, that the repudiation of Clinton has turned into a personal repudiation of her supporters as basic human beings. And to me, that's just crazy, and I can't figure out why (seemingly suddenly) a particular group of Democrats have so fiercely personalized the failure of their candidate. (And I know that there are millions of Clinton supporters out there who already are behind Obama, but they aren't the ones dominating the news now, nor the ones that could be a major concern for the Democrats down the road, nor the ones who are being so obnoxious and selfish).

I've been trying to figure this out lately, but with no success. I really don’t think it’s due to racism. Sure, some people, particularly in the Appalachians, openly said they wouldn’t and didn’t vote for Obama due to race, but I’m just not convinced A) that that group is really that large, and B) that, come a general election, sexism wouldn’t also be a factor in their vote. It may be the case that they would vote for Clinton over McCain but not Obama over McCain, but I’ve yet to see any compelling evidence or hear any strong argument as to why that would be the case.

Nor do I think it’s because of charisma; while Clinton was a fine candidate, she didn’t have the charisma of some leaders. She wasn’t awful (she seemed more compelling than Kerry did in 2004 by light years), but neither was she great. While I’m no expert, I’ve studied the role of charisma in popularity of leaders to some extent (mostly in Latin America), and Clinton really didn’t fit any general notions and theories on the role and definition of charisma that I’m familiar with. I understand that a lot of people were drawn to her for her presentation, but to a large extent, I can’t help but wonder if it wasn’t her own personal charisma that drew supporters, but rather the symbol they personally perceived her to be.

I suppose it could be the cult of the Clintons, built up by the myth of Bill being the party's "savior" in the 90s when he became the only two-term democratic president in the last 40 years, a myth the Clinton machine and it's supporters have openly built up. But even there, I'm not so sure; if this primary campaign proved anything, it's that Bill was far from infallible even among some of his most strident supporters, as he was heavily criticized even from the rank-and-file for some of his comments during the campaign. What's more, now that it's over, many insiders are blaming Bill at least in part for Hillary's failure, so I'm not even sure the "Clinton mystique" is nearly that strong (or that it ever was).

In short, I just don't understand this. Can anybody ever remember any election, general or primary, presidential, state, local, congressional, etc., where voters took the loss of a candidate so personally? Why is this happening with Clinton's supporters? Will this last, and potentially ruin the 2008 election? It's just really, really weird to me (the only close comparison I can come up with is Nader in 2000, but even then, his supporters didn't take his loss personally as much as critiques that he cost the Democrats the election in 2000), and I'm not sure how we can explain this. Anybody else have any thoughts on this?

Historical Image of the Day

Bill Clinton in front of Ho Chi Minh statue, Hanoi, 2000

Remember the Clintons

I've been bemused over the past two weeks as people have expressed outrage over the Clintons' tactics. From using race against Barack Obama to trying to steal the Michigan primary, Hillary and Bill Clinton have dismayed progressives.

And people are surprised by this?

I've read many Democratic bloggers, usually of the semi-moderate persuasion, usually in their mid-30s or older, who look back on the Clinton years as good years. They can't believe this is what they are seeing.

But their romanticized view of the Clinton years is off base. Sure, compared to George W. Bush, Clinton looks good. But that's like remembering back to the Millard Fillmore presidency as pretty good while dealing with James Buchanan. Clinton and Fillmore weren't the disasters that Bush and Buchanan are/were. But they sure weren't good.

It's too early for historians to have really looked at the Clinton years. But many commentators blame the lack of progressive legislation on the rise of the Republicans and the 1994 election. That is certainly part of it. But Clinton didn't exactly try very hard either. Between his personal behavior that gave the media and the Republicans more than enough ammo to avoid talking about substantive policy to his policy of triangulation (and the loathsome hiring of Dick Morris as an advisor) to the way Clinton could only seem to function if he was under attack, he sucked. After the summer of 1993, almost nothing good came out of the Clinton White House. When the health care reforms failed and Clinton caved on the gays in the military issue, it was all over. Clinton was fighting for nothing more than personal power.

Thus, a widespread dismay over Clinton and the search for an alternative. Unfortunately, that alternative was Nader.

I am reminded now why I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. There's no question--it was a colossal mistake to support Nader. But I can again understand what drove me to that--the political choices and priorities of Bill Clinton. Hillary doesn't seem different in any meaningful way on this front.

I'll vote for her this time because I am afraid of Roe being overturned after John Paul Stevens dies. But I sure hope to heavens that I don't have to do that.

The Real Bill Clinton

One annoying fact of the Bush presidency is that it has many progressives look back wistfully on the Clinton years. We forget what a total bastard that guy is. This isn't a fair link really, since he seems to have taken it down, but Ari at The Edge of the American West, states:

I was one of the thousands of moronic progressives who lived through Bill Clinton’s presidency by gritting my teeth. I totally underestimated what an effective leader he was — at the time and given the givens. In retrospect, though, I think he was one of our better presidents*, perhaps even cracking the top five.

So, it has been with considerable anguish that I’ve watched him demeaning himself with his odious attacks on Barack Obama. And let me be clear: Bill should be stumping for Hillary. For more reasons than I have time to catalog. But I wish that he would campaign with more dignity. And I find his tendency to attack and then throw up his hands with a “What? Me?” expression on his face maddening. If he keeps this up, I think he’s going to end up doing Hillary more harm than good. And he’ll certainly damage the party’s reputation, as he remains, to a very great extent, the most visible and popular Democrat in the country.

But that IS Bill Clinton. This isn't an anomaly. This is what Bill Clinton has done his entire career. Clinton was not a particularly good president from my point of view, largely because he got a shockingly small amount of progressive legislation passed. He seems good now, but he was not good at the time. There is a reason many progressives voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. Really, there are many reasons. But one very important one is named Bill Clinton. We were wrong to go Nader, but we were not wrong in our sentiments about how terrible the Democratic Party had become.

Scott quotes Brian Beutler:

I don't know Bill Clinton, so I can't say why he does what he does, but it's hard not to conclude that--whether he became habituated to a way of politics in a bygone era or whether he just is this way--he's still disposed to some of the things that made liberals bristle when they were supporting him a decade ago. But the political realities in the 1990s were much different than the political realities today, and there's much, much less chance that people like Mike Tomasky will countenance the Ricky Ray Rectoring, welfare-reforming, Obama-smearing side of Bill Clinton now, when such behavior isn't really construable as an unfortunate side-effect of the historical moment.

Indeed, but who is going to do anything about it? Although the Democratic Party voters as a whole seem to want to distance themselves from this kind of distasteful politics, Clinton is doing things the way he always has--nasty and self-serving. And we are so desperate to end our long national nightmare that as bad as the Clintons might be, I have to think that nearly all progressives will hold their noses and vote them back in.

The thing about this incident is that it helps me believe that a Hillary Clinton presidency is going to be a lot like the Bill Clinton presidency. Triangulation, a lack of progressive policies, pandering in the worst way, throwing allies under the bus. In other ways, kind of bad. But still a zillion times better than George W. Bush.