Pelosi to the Barricade!
“On Thursday, in advance of a Friday meeting with the president at the White House, Pelosi lit into Obama’s budget director, Jack Lew, in what is becoming a habit of sending sharp messages through his top aides. Pelosi sought to impress on Lew — and no doubt his bosses at the White House — that House Democrats expect to be consulted more now than on past deals and that the president can’t expect to win passage of a debt limit package without support from House Democrats.
“Don’t insult us,” she said as Lew tried to explain why House Democrats were cut out of the budget bill discussion earlier this year, according to one source who was in the room. “You guys don’t know how to count.” On Politico
And she does know how to count! Catholic school education!
Pelosi is the best “Speaker” since Sam Rayburn in the 50′s & 60′s. Hopefully, she will actually get the job back again soon.
Once again, as in the health care debate, Pelosi will have to pull Obama’s backside out of the fire.
What else would you expect from a mother and grandmother but keeping the boys in line?
Hooray process stories!
It’s this sausage that keeps satiated the hungry masses of ‘The West Wing’ devotees (myself included) who desperately await when network execs will come crawling back to Aaron Sorkin and beg him to begin scripting the next iteration of the series, wherein President Sam Seaborn and First Lady Ainsley Hayes will cleanse our palates of the awful taste still lingering from the final few post-Sorkin seasons.
Hey, if Star Trek can be reincarnated multiple times, I can hold out hope for the WW!
MB: Yes, but do you vote in the real elections?
Count me as a cynic on all of this. Pelosi caved in 2008, catering to the Bush money team, Big Bidness, and fears of economic catastrophe.
Maybe the GOP wouldn’t really mind a lawless free-for-all. The telling point is this: can our corporate masters tolerate default? If not, it’s not going to happen. It’s that simple. If it suits their agenda, it very well may.
The president has, by the way, yet to earn my 2012 vote. I would have no problem being part of an Al Gore solution to his drift to the center. If he doesn’t realize that he can’t seriously court TeaCrazy, then he deserves to be drummed out of office. I can only hope that some palatable third party candidate is out there somewhere.
We are all cynics! But I count on Pelosi to actually represent the Democratic Party constituency–a group our president seems to have lost contact with.
And come November 2012, I expect that many of us will once again vote for the lesser of two evils; my guess is that will be Obama–but I could be wrong.
Is it too early to start the movement for Pelosi for POTUS?
I can see it now: Pelosi VS a Palin-Bachmann team.
Woudln’t THAT be one hoot of a race??
Hmmm! Sounds a bit like women’s wrestling. I don’t think the U.S. is ready for a woman president.
Margaret (7/9 4:29 pm):
We almost had Hilary. I wouldn’t have liked that, simply because she’s an opportunist who climbed from nothing to fame purely as the wife of a popular president, but we could certainly have done worse. I suspect that the obstacle isn’t the voters, but the political gatekeepers.
Maybe it’s time to get rid of the Democrats and Republicans. They seem to serve mainly as polarizers. Parties aren’t a necessary part of the system here, as they are in Britain and Canada, for example.
Oh, I think that the US is readier for a woman POTUS than a lot of people think!
Think of how good SHE would have been —- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Jordan
David Smith: “We almost had Hilary.” Really? She didn’t get the nomination.
The country has barely adjusted to NOT having a 100 percent white male for president; we’re three decades from a woman president.
Jimmy: “Oh, I think that the US is readier for a woman POTUS than a lot of people think!” You’re a daffy optimist. Let’s have some data.
Margaret(77/9 7:17 pm):
I thought conventional wisdom was that she’d have been a shoe-in had Obama not gummed up the works. Wasn’t she the establishment choice? With McCain’s unfortunate selection of Palin as running mate, I think there’s a very good chance she’d have been elected.
But, really, what does it matter? Shouldn’t we be past electing people because they belong to this or that underrepresented group?
DS: Yes, “We should be past electing people because they belong to this or that underrepresented group.” But I don’t think we are.
I am coming to think that 25 percent of Obama’s problems are due to his own tendencies to compromise, 40 percent to the fact that he is biracial, and the rest to the idiosyncrasies of our current political set-up.
I’ve just started reading Bowling Alone, which helps explain the resistance to compromise and the polarization we’ve witnessed in the past thirty years or so. Or at least it traces its origins and shows that it’s generational. Presumably, in the “why” chapters Putnam will get into the causes.
Obama comes out of the beginning of that period of disengagement, and he’s a politician, so he should have a good sense of what turns these people off, but that doesn’t seem to be helping him much.
Why do you think the biracialism is such a big handicap? I thought that was a large part of what got him elected.
So, 40 percent of the reason that conservatives and Republicans oppose the liberal Democrat Barack Obama is because of his race? If he were lily white, they would be 40 percent more supportive??
If President Obama’s race is a problem with anyone, it isn’t conservatives and Republicans. They would be just as opposed if it were President John Kerry or President Al Gore or President John Edwards all of whom are whiter than white.
“And she does know how to count! Catholic school education!”
I’m sure her hedge fund millionaire husband helps out too! Comes in handy when those botox injections are kicking in.
I think race is a huge factor in at least some people’s dislike of Obama. 16% of all voters (34% of conservatives) believe that Obama is not an American. Who can say with a straight face this would be an issue if President Obama were white?
Irene –
i agree with you, except that I don’t think Obama is disliked so much as that he is just assumed, because he is black, non to be up to the job. He’s an eminently likeable man (the polls show a lot of personal approval of him), and even in our old culture it was socially acceptable to *like* and even admire individual black people. What simply wasn’t done was to assume that they could be as competent as white ones. And yes, I think all of this is unconscious. These days I think there are few people who are out and out racists.
On the other hand, there are many who will root for him just because he’s black, and I’m one of them. I would love to see our first black president turn out to be a great one. So it’s kind of hard to admit his apparent weakness. Or maybe he really isn’t too accommodating/compromising. Maybe by going along with Boehner et al he is putting them on the political spot — forcing them to show their true hand — that keeping one’s money is what counts most in life.
I can hear our super-conservative friends screaming already, but allowing the rich not to pay their fair share of taxes and even subsidizing some of them (look at the ridiculous farm subsidies) shows what their true ultimate value is — $.
Bender: “So, 40 percent of the reason that conservatives and Republicans oppose the liberal Democrat Barack Obama is because of his race? If he were lily white, they would be 40 percent more supportive??”
You jump to conclusions! The word Republican/TP/Conservative never entered my comment. I think there are Democrats who don’t like him and some of those because as Ann O says above they don’t think he’s up to the job. It seems to me that another “racial” factor here is that being an African-American he has learned/taught himself that accommodation/compromise is preferable to confrontation a la the Al Sharpton of yesteryear.
Sometimes in my gloomy moments, I think Obama would benefit from another Democratic candidate in the presidential race. It would sharpen his views of what is at stake, and if he know what’s at stake, another candidate would help sharpen his message and language.
If you look at the history of women in US leadership, there has definitely been a definite “uptick” since the 1990s. Is there “proportional representation” in these offices? No. Is the country ready for a woman as POTUS? Peggy thinks not. Hillary Clinton gave it a good run for her money. I think if she were to run again, there is a better than 50-50 chance that she could become the nominee of the Democratic Party.
WOMEN IN U.S. POLITICAL LEADERSHIP (source: Wikipedia – of course!):
US Senate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate):
17 (17%) out of 100. The first woman in the Senate was Rebecca Latimer Felton (D-GA) who served for only one day in 1922. Hattie Caraway (D-AR) became the first woman to win election to the Senate in 1932. No women served from 1922 to 1931, 1945 to 1947, and 1973 to 1978. Since 1978, there has always been at least one woman in the Senate. Women (5) were elected in 1992, the “year of the woman”: In addition to Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who was reelected that year, four women were elected to the Senate, all Democrats. They were Patty Murray (D-WA), Carol Moseley Braun of Illinois, and Dianne Feinstein (D) and Barbara Boxer (D), both of California. In June 1993, Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) won a special election in Texas, and joined Nancy Kassebaum (KS) as a fellow female Republican Senator. For four states, California, Washington, Maine, and New Hampshire, both senators are women. California’s current two senators (Boxer and Feinstein) are the first two women to be elected to the U.S. Senate in the same election (1992) from the same state. Seven female senators previously served in the U.S. House of Representatives—a distinction long held by only Margaret Chase Smith—Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Olympia Snowe, Blanche Lincoln, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, and Kirsten Gillibrand.
US House: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives)
72 (16.6%) out of 434. 44 out of 50 states have Congresswomen. The first woman (Janette Rankin, R-MT) was elected in 1917. The states that have not elected a woman to the house are Alaska, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Vermont. However, women have represented Alaska and North Dakota in the United States Senate, and Alaska, Delaware, and Vermont have all elected female governors. The highest position yet held by a woman in Iowa and Mississippi is that of Lt. Governor. There are several states that have elected women to the house in the past but do not currently have any female Representatives. They are Rhode Island, New Jersey, South Carolina, Georgia, Indiana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Utah, Idaho, Kentucky, Arkansas, Nebraska, Montana, Virginia, New Mexico, and Oregon. However, Louisiana currently has a woman representing it in the United States Senate, Senator Mary Landrieu.
US Governors/Governor Equivalents: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_state_governors_in_the_United_States)
6 (12%) out of 51: Beverly Perdue (D-NC), Jan Brewer (R-AZ), Susana Martinez (R-NM), Mary Fallin (R-OK), Nikki Hailey (R-SC0 and Sharon Pratt Kelly (D-DC). Of the total number of women governors, 20 out of 35 (57%) were Democrats. The first woman governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross (D-WY) was elected in 1924. Connecticut and Arizona are the only two states to have elected female governors from both major parties. New Hampshire has also had female governors from two parties, but Republican Vesta M. Roy served only in the acting capacity for a short time. Arizona was the first state where a woman followed another woman as governor, both being from different parties. Arizona also has had the most female governors with a total of four, and is the first state to have three women in a row serve as governor. A record nine women served as chief executive of their states on two different occasions: first, between December 6, 2006, when Sarah Palin was inaugurated as the first female governor of Alaska, and January 14, 2008, when Kathleen Blanco left office as governor of Louisiana, and second, between January 10, 2009, when Beverly Perdue was inaugurated as governor of North Carolina, and January 20, 2009, when Ruth Ann Minner retired as governor of Delaware.
It seems odd to me that polarization persists. Why are Congressmen so unwilling to compromise? It isn’t as if a Republican’s constituents are going to say, “That creep! He compromised on taxes! Well, I’ll show him! Next election I’m going to vote for the Democrat!” Nor will any Democrat’s constituents say “That creep! He compromised on Medicare! Well, … Next election I’ll vote for the Republican!”
Is it really the danger of a primary challenger? Aren’t incumbents pretty well-insulated by their war chests? Is it fear that the base won’t turn out? Why isn’t the danger of alienating independents the decisive factor?
“I can hear our super-conservative friends screaming already, but allowing the rich not to pay their fair share of taxes and even subsidizing some of them (look at the ridiculous farm subsidies) shows what their true ultimate value is — $.”
Ad hominem alert!
Most conservatives are not concerned about $, particularly with respect to taxes. Many are concerned about the size (and expense) of government and its impact on our lives, both communal and individual. I think greed, unfortunately, is a bipartisan vice.
And conservatives oppose farm subsidies, so you’re kind of off the mark on that one too.
Felapton, exactly! What is going on?
Margaret writes (7/10 1:08 pm):
Interesting. Obvious, now that you mention it, but I confess I’d never thought of it that way. I do remember something in an early-career New Yorker article about his saying that he’d learned not to make sudden moves with white people. That sounds racist, to modern ears, but it also rings true.
Margaret, you seem conflicted about terminology. In one place you refer to him as biracial and in another as African American. I suspect much of the electorate is similarly conflicted. One of the few things that have turned me off on Obama is the way he decided early on to be African American, rather than embracing his biracialness – probably because that was the only way he was going to get ahead politically. That’s being realistic, I suppose, but it’s also a form of lying. It’s not easy being green.
Felapton (7/10 7:29 pm):
Read Bowling Alone.
DS: Not sure bi-racial was a category when Obama was in high school and college. I accept that he is African-American. Sorry to confuse, I used bi-racial to remind us that, after all, he is half and half.
Given Obama’s complexion and features he has had no choice about how he will be treated by most people — and that is not as a biracial person. Being black and white is not like being Irish and German. Remember the old phrase “just one drop of black blood”? It meant that no matter how many of your ancestors were non-black, if you had one known black ancestor, then you were going to be assumed to be black culturally and you would suffer segregation. It’s why so many mixed-race people moved far from home where their families weren’t known and they could “pass”. Bi-racial, all black, the black people carried that terrible load in common.
Footnote: a New Orleans bi-racial woman, Henriette deLille, who founded an order of nuns has been beatified. She was quite fair. When her cause was made known some relatives of hers in California were interviewed. They did not know that they were bi-racial, but were delighted to have a possible saint in the family.
Obama’s election was a great chance for this country to move beyond the old racial stereotypes. Unfortunately, he allowed himself to be caught up in those stereotypes. He may have had no political choice – assuming that, like, I imagine, most politicians, he wanted to get far ahead very fast – but in making that binary choice, he’s effectively prolonged the old nonsense about humanity being divided clearly into races. The Census Bureau, more shame to them, continue with that nonsense to this day.
If, as Margaret suggests, Obama’s indecision or perhaps excessive tendency toward being conciliatory stems itself from fear of whites (I know she didn’t use the word “fear”, but I think it’s implied) we’re suffering once again from our national original sin of slavery. Nothing is simple. Change is often slower than many of us wish it were.
David: In many ways I think we have moved beyond the old racial stereotypes, but my impression is that new ones have emerged, perhaps more subtle, but nonetheless operative.
My goodness. This thread certainly has gone off in lots of interesting directions—particularly for one started by such a relatively straightforward post. (I’ll try to contain myself by taking things one at a time.)
@Felapton (7/10, 7:29 pm) I agree with David Smith that “Bowling Alone” is a good book and worth reading. I’d add a couple of other points about contemporary American politics:
1-It’s in the nature of politics to be argumentative. Politics is, to a certain extent, what we have instead of war as a means of solving disagreements. It’s also, as you imply (I think), in the nature of politics to be compromising—in all the senses of that word.
2-I would not underestimate the importance of racial segregation as a “solution” to political polarization that “worked” for approximately a century of our nation’s existence—say, from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 to somewhere between 1965 (passage of the Voting Rights Act) and 1980 (Republicans gaining control of the White House and Senate using the “southern strategy”).
For most of that period, Democrats were (self-consciously) the “white man’s” party. Republicans by contrast were the party of civil rights—for blacks and for women. Democrats were also the “working man’s” party and Republicans were the party of business. (Please excuse my gross oversimplifications.) The practical result was that by the early/mid-20th century, most African-Americans (still living in the South) were disenfranchised; and most Democratic elected officials from the South were affluent businessmen/landowners. The consequence was low levels of party polarization in Congress—particularly in the middle third of the 20th century.
As the political parties remade themselves in the 2nd half of the 20th century, Democrats became the party of civil rights and more ideologically liberal. Republicans became more ideologically conservative and increasingly relied on a white voting base. Finally, in recent Congresses, the parties have sorted themselves out so that, by some voting measures, the most liberal Republican is more conservative than the most conservative Democrat (and vice versa, of course).
3-Leaving race aside, some political scientists who’ve studied these matters have concluded that contemporary Republican voters mostly self-identify as “conservative” (as opposed to “moderate” or “liberal”) and also place a low value on compromise as a trait they’d like their elected officials to exhibit.
These same studies show Democratic voters are more ideologically diverse, and place a high value on compromise as a trait they’d like their elected officials. These studies, among other things, help explain why liberals get so exasperated by Democratic officials—liberals don’t have as much power within the Democratic party (or the wider polis) as conservatives do within the Republican party (and the nation).
4-”Is it really the danger of a primary challenger?” In a word, yes. (Again, oversimplifying I know.) Many, if not most, congressional Republicans represent reliably Republican districts; thus, their biggest threat to their re-election is a primary challenge from the right (because Republican primary voters are a more ideologically cohesive subset of an already ideologically cohesive party). Congressional Republicans look at what happened in 2010 Senate primaries in states like DE, NV, PA, UT and quite reasonably conclude that it’s essential to vote conservative and not be seen as a compromiser—if they want to be reelected. (The same is true for congressional Democrats, but to a lesser degree because Democratic primary voters, while more liberal than the party as a whole, are still less ideologically cohesive than their Republican counterparts).
@Ann Olivier (7/10, 11:05 pm) Thanks for mentioning Henriette DeLille, a great American saint (though not quite there yet by Roman standards). She founded the Sisters of the Holy Family, one of three historically black congregations of women religious, in mid-19th century New Orleans. For more information about the community, and about their foundress, check out their website: http://www.sistersoftheholyfamily.com/welcome.html
And here’s a link to further readings about Sr. DeLille: http://www.sistersoftheholyfamily.com/DelilleCatalog.html I can’t speak for all the writings, but I can recommend (highly!) pretty much anything written by Cyprian Davis or by Shawn Copeland.
Luke Hill: “My goodness. This thread certainly has gone off in lots of interesting directions…”
Shows the power of associative thinking.
@Jeff Landry (7/10, 7:36 pm) It may be just my Monday morning fogginess, but I had trouble understanding your post.
What do you mean by “most conservatives are not concerned about $, particularly with respect to taxes”? It seems to me that one of the (if not the) central policy goals of the Republican Party currently is to preserve the Bush tax rates—even at the cost of rising deficits.
How does “most conservatives are not concerned about $” fit together with “many are concerned about the…expense of government”?
And when you say “conservatives oppose farm subsidies”, what is your definition of conservatives? I ask because it seems to me that many, if not most, congressional conservatives vote for (and protect) farm subsidies on a regular basis.
I realize that’s a whole bunch of “talk to me like I’m stupid” all at once….but sometimes it comes in waves. :)
By the way, do I have this right: congressional Republicans insist that the #1 issue facing the country is reducing the deficit, so much so that they’re on the brink of forcing the country into bankruptcy, and over the weekend they walked away from a proposed $4 trillion deficit-reducing deal the Democrats put on the table because it was too big? Am I missing something here?
“What do you mean by “most conservatives are not concerned about $, particularly with respect to taxes”? It seems to me that one of the (if not the) central policy goals of the Republican Party currently is to preserve the Bush tax rates—even at the cost of rising deficits.”
I understood the point of the quoted comment to which I was responding as suggesting that “super-conservatives” (not sure what those are) are greedy, i.e. only value $. Ergo my response was in that light. Of course, Republicans are concerned about the size and scope of government, but not because they are greedy (again the implication). Most conservatives with which I associate are hard-working middle class, perhaps upper middle class at best, folks who are either small business owners or professionals who are concerned about the impact increasing government size, regulation, and expense are having on the country. They are, by and large, concerned about the poor, but see the answer to most problems as requiring solutions that grow the size of the pie, not just make people “rich.” Most conservatives I associate with are not so much in favor of the Bush tax cuts in themselves, but fear that “bracket creep”, i.e. even though we say we won’t raise taxes on X, the net effect is that their taxes do go up. They are suspicious that you can slice and dice tax brackets as easily as most liberals believe. They’ve seen it happen to them in their businesses, etc.
As for farm subsidies, of course “all politics is local” so you’ll have some conservatives voting for this or that subsidy, but on a principled, intellectual level, most conservatives are opposed to subsidies. See George Will in particular.
But again, the point of my post was to rebut the charge that the only thing conservatives care about is money in a greedy sense. I don’t think it does any side any good to assume the worst about people with whom we disagree.
@Jeff Landry (7/11, 11:52 am) Thanks for the explanation.
I would just observe that most conservatives with whom you associate seem like they might fall into the category of “compassionate conservatives” as W. Bush defined himself in the 2000 campaign, and as people like John DiIulio defined themselves in going to work for the Bush administration: A humble sense of government’s role and possibilities (both foreign and domestic), an interest in compromising with Democrats on some social issues (e.g., NCLB and Medicare Part D), an interest in racial and ethnic equality/outreach (e.g., comprehensive immigration reform).
There’s another conservative tradition that David Brooks and others tried to rally support for under the title of “national greatness” conservatism, a banner perhaps best carried by John McCain before and (to some extent) during his 2008 presidential run: a vigorous assertion of individual freedom (including in foreign and military affairs), support for a limited but strong federal government role in economic development (in the tradition of Henry Clay and Abraham Lincoln) and (again) an openness to new immigrants and citizenship.
From my perspective, there’s very little room for those two versions of conservatism in today’s Republican party (at least as that party is represented in Congress, and (for the most part) by its presidential candidates, and its most prominent newly-elected state government officials). The dominant strain of conservatism—as it is in political power today—is:
*anti-tax to the point that Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thacher would not be welcome,
*anti-immigrant to the point that Georgia Republicans seem on the verge of decimating the state’s largest industry,
*anti-poor to the point that it will not accept cuts in Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, UI, SNAP and other safety net program if the “price” of those cuts is a relatively modest closing of tax loopholes for the affluent (let alone any talk of raising tax rates).
Do you see it that way as well? If so, what do you and your conservative friends and associates think about this state of affairs? Do you talk about how to regain power within the conservative movement?
Or do you see it differently? And if so, how?
Ross Douthat tries to explain Republican intransigence. Not that it’ll convince anyone probably.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/opinion/11douthat.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss
@Luke Hill -
My experience doesn’t comport with your characterizations. For example, I am a huge David Brooks fan (some would say apologist), and am also sympathetic to some of the “compassionate conservative” agenda items, although I am not a fan of the Bush Administration. Some conservatives I know started out liking Bush, more for his leadership style but gradually lost faith in the administration along the way.
The interesting thing about the resurgent “anti-X” conservatism you clearly don’t like it is that it is not that different at all a form of populist anger than what is on the left. Strip away some of the set pieces, and the rhetoric is suprisingly the same, and it is surprisingly centered on social justice concerns. I am NOT a tea partier, but we have 2 neighbors who are, and when you talk to them, you get the sense from them that the believe the government (especially the federal govt) has broken its pact with the “ordinary” citizen and that, perhaps worse, the government plays by a different set of rules than it ought. THis is why things boiled over during the stimulus debate: these people saw family and friends lose jobs, go out of business, scale back, defer dreams, and yet the government was essentially printing money spreading it here and there, and seemingly to the very people who caused the mess. Again, I don’t agree with their rhetoric, but when you talk to these people there is a real sense that “enough is enough.” It’s not that they are “anti-poor” or greedy, or stupid, or whatever – they just have a basic outrage that the traditional sense of fair play doesn’t seem to be applying anymore, and they are expressing that outrage via a conservative language (to which many of them were pre-disposed to anyway).
Just my 2 cents – not trying to justify, just explain.
Oh, and I should add, that in my (admittedly limited experience) with some Tea Party folks, I saw nary a trace of racism in their thinking with respect to Pres. Obama. And if you asked them who the “Koch brothers” are, they’d probably assume a new pizza store in town.
Obama chooses to self-identify (politically identify?) as African-American as opposed to bi-racial.
I choose to self-identify as Lord of the Rings.
It ain’t necessarily so. And more than a few African-Americans challenge Obama on this, too. In his case it definitely is a distinction with a difference.
I wrote above: “In many ways I think we have moved beyond the old racial stereotypes, but my impression is that new ones have emerged, perhaps more subtle, but nonetheless operative.”
Here is a story in today’s Time’s that might be an example of subtle but operative.
“Matthew’s story raises perhaps the most critical question in the debate about charter schools: do they cherry-pick students, if not by gaming the admissions process, then by counseling out children who might be more expensive or difficult to educate — and who could bring down their test scores, graduation rates and safety records?” the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/nyregion/charter-school-sends-message-thrive-or-transfer.html?ref=nyregion
NB: Charter schools in NYC are public schools! And you will see from the picture that Matthew is African-American, or bi-racial, or whatever…. So even though NYC schools are sort of integrated (i.e., not segregated, old racial stereotype), can Matthew make the cut with the standards (subtle but operative) set my Eve Moscowitz the organizer of several charter schools. Read it and offer your opinion.
PS 75 where Matthew goes now–a real public school–is a good school; our children went there.
With respect, that’s another Times talk-of-the-town piece – low on facts, high on quotes and anecdotes. It seemed to me as I read it that the writer was trying to push a point – that charter schools cherry pick – and using little stories to prove it. If you’re suggesting that cherry picking is racism, boy, I think that might be a stretch.
It’s tendentious to reason backwards, saying that because something impacts a minority negatively it must be flawed.
@Jeff Landry (7/11, 2:01 pm) Thanks for your explanation; I appreciate it.
I’m not sure what you mean when you write “the interesting thing about the resurgent “anti-X” conservatism you clearly don’t like it is that it is not that different at all a form of populist anger than what is on the left”.
I also have conservative friends, relatives and acquaintances who “have a basic outrage that the traditional sense of fair play doesn’t seem to be applying anymore”, so I have (I think) both some understanding of and sympathy for their views and how they arrived at them.
The point I was trying to make above (7/11, 12:52 pm) is that you and like-minded conservatives (Brooks, Douthat, Salam, et al; as well as the friends and neighbors you describe) have little power in the Republican Party today (or so it seems to me). The room under the Republican tent for “national greatness conservatives” and for “compassionate conservatives” seems to have shrunk drastically (let alone the space for “Burkean conservatives”).
Some, like David Frum and Bruce Bartlett, seem to have made a break (or been cast out) from today’s conservative movement and Republican Party. Others (like David Brooks) seem to be, for the most part, hanging in there by arguing (weakly in my opinion) that “both parties are to blame” for things like the current debt ceiling debate.
Obviously, that’s not my problem in any direct way (not my party, not my politics generally speaking). Indirectly, as a member of the same polis, it does affect me. I’m more curious about how it affects you and others like you.
“The point I was trying to make above (7/11, 12:52 pm) is that you and like-minded conservatives (Brooks, Douthat, Salam, et al; as well as the friends and neighbors you describe) have little power in the Republican Party today (or so it seems to me). The room under the Republican tent for “national greatness conservatives” and for “compassionate conservatives” seems to have shrunk drastically (let alone the space for “Burkean conservatives”).”
But where you see a cleaving, I see a cohesion, a greater emphasis, if you will. And this applies with equal force to the traditional divide between libertarians and social conservatives. The Bush administration is the catalyst for BOTH the “apostates” like Bartlett (who was already on the outs in the Reagan administration) and Frum and the resurgent strand. The Bush administration pushed some to the brink – even out totally, whereas for others it caused a redoubling back to some of the “basics.” Now, to be sure, Douthat, Salam, Brooks, etc., myself included, all have their problems with this redoubling, but this is what it is going on: a return to a strident limited government position.
Of course what drew me away from the Democratic Party of my (family) roots was the intellectual give-and-take among these various factions, so I’m inclined to see more of that and to defend more of it when I see it. It makes for more interesting politics than the increasingly uniform liberalization of the Democrats (who have no more room for John Breaux, Scoop Jackson, etc. than there is for Nelson Rockefeller in today’s GOP – both sides have experienced greater uniformity).
@Jeff Landry (7/12, 12:10 pm) Okay, so if the Republican party is coalescing around a “strident limited government position”, and “casting out apostates” like Bartlett, Frum and Dilulio (from its policy ranks) and Hatch, Lugar, Specter and Snowe (from its elected officials ranks), doesn’t that make for less intellectually interesting politics within the party?
All the polling I’m aware of shows far more self-identified moderates and conservatives in today’s Democratic party than there are self-identified moderates and liberals in the Republican party.
DS @7/12; 1:22AM: “It’s tendentious to reason backwards, saying that because something impacts a minority negatively it must be flawed.”
The story is anecdotal to be sure. It only suggests, doesn’t necessarily show, subtle but operative. I first read the story without seeing the picture, so actually my reasoning went in a more general way… Boys in general have a harder fit in the kind of classrooms described in the story. Reminded me that somewhere (Sweden?), children don’t start primary school until 7 or 8; boys and girls are in separate classrooms, and presumably boys have greater lee way to be energetic! But I digress.
What were the perhaps subtle but operative “hints” at work in my mind as I re-read the story (with picture)? The fact that the mother was asked to do a video promoting the school; charter schools are under some suspicion of favoring kids from advantaged households (the lottery system notwithstanding); having an African-American mother promote the school helps allay that suspicion. The fact that Matthew has done well in another good school, which from my long-ago experience is integrated and tolerant of active behavior and with teachers who have a lot of experience with behavioral variations.
There is a lot of money at stake in the charter school movement. The woman heading this franchise is active and aggressive. Perhaps she cannot afford to make room for a lot of kids like Matthew. Or as you suggest, perhaps this was just the wrong school for him.
“like Bartlett, Frum and Dilulio (from its policy ranks) and Hatch, Lugar, Specter and Snowe (from its elected officials ranks), doesn’t that make for less intellectually interesting politics within the party?”
It hasn’t for me. Of course anyone interested in policy over politics (as I like to think I am) is going to be frustrated by any party; I remember in “Founding Brothers” about why the Founders were leary of political parties, and I recall it being that they tended to boil down to interests and factions, which is largely what has occurred in both parties. And your choice of heroes/apostates are flawed: Specter was always a careerist willing to do/say/join whatever ensured his own success. The rap against Hatch, Lugar, and Snowe is primarily their “insider” status; it’s difficult, I think, to simply boil it down to ideology.
As for the polls, it’s hard to respond to your statement in the abstract without seeing the polling info you referring. THe most comprehensive and useful poll recently I’ve seen re: partisan identification and behavior broke people down into something like 6 categories, and it showed that there are, truly speaking, very few pure “independents” or “moderates”, but rather gradations and degrees (something I first heard Karl Rove argue actually). I’ll try to find that study.
Speaking of polls and the debt debate, however, I did find this polling data interesting in the Post this morning: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/behind-the-numbers/post/shifting-public-concerns-in-debt-limit-debate/2011/07/11/gIQAR4WL9H_blog.html
The public is largely split, which at least gives some cover to both sides (for now).