PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE.Noam Scheiber has some smart remarks on my generation gap post from yesterday. Ed Kilgore also offers the reasonable rejoinder that one major failing of the "new school" tendency in progressive politics is some mistaken notions about the past. I think, though, that the crucial sub rosa divide isn't really about the past or the present, but about the future.
JUST POSTED ON TAP ONLINE: IDEOLOGY, NETROOTS, AND LIEBERMAN-LAMONT. Two new pieces address debates and themes that have either been raised or reinvigorated by the Nutmeg State primary. Scott Winship of Democratic Strategist fame takes on the "netroots are partisan, not ideological" nostrum and says it's bunk; he makes an argument that is likely to be controversial.
RUSS FEINGOLD SPEAKS, YOU LISTEN? A couple weeks ago, surveying the poor press coverage greeting Pete Stark's new health care proposal, I realized I should probably stop complaining about such superficial wire stories and use my position at a political magazine to actually, y'know, do something about it. Today comes the first attempt. I spent fifteen minutes chatting with Sen. Russ Feingold this morning on his new health proposal, which would offer a big pot o' money for a small number of states to create universal health programs. Better yet, I recorded the call and got ace editor Alec Oveis to stick it online. You can listen to it here.
NICHE-MARKETING A WAR. It wasn't so much where Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned up on the airwaves last night, but that she landed on these two shows on the same day: The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer (PBS) and The O'Reilly Factor (FOX News Channel). Secretary Rice, it seems, sees two influential groups that need persuading on the U.S. approach (hands-off?) to the current conflict in the Middle East: the small, intellectual "opinion-maker" crowd who watch Jim Lehrer, and the angry, right-wing anti-intellectuals who love Bill O'Reilly.
I DON'T NOT WANT MY 401(K). The Los Angeles Times has an interesting article on the move towards automatic enrollment in 401(k)s, also known as opt-out 401(k)s. The basic concept is simple: People are lazy. You, probably, are lazy. If forced to request, fill out, and turn in the forms that are necessary in order to set a retirement nest egg, you'll probably instead just go watch somebody get hit in the crotch with a baseball on YouTube. Similarly, if you're automatically entered into the 401(k), rather than go through the hassle of removing yourself from a sensible, dutiful savings shelter, you'll just adapt. While saving.
JUST POSTED ON TAP ONLINE: CONTRA IRAN. Last month Laura Rozentalked to Mark Perry about Hezbollah and the unfolding crisis in Lebanon. Today, she talks with another Hezbollah expert, Magnus Ranstorp, who offers a very different perspective.
YEAH, IMAGINE THAT. Last Sunday, chatting up Wolf Blitzer on CNN, Senator Mitch McConnell imagineered himself up the following scenario: "Imagine the United States, if you had a couple of terrorist organizations in Mexico or Canada, that came across our borders, captured two of our soldiers, and then started launching rockets against our civilian population. We'd go after them, too."
RUBIN REPENTS? I just noticed it, so I guess I can hardly wonder why it attracted so little attention, but I'm sort of stunned that Nation national affairs correspondent and leading fair-trader William Greider's tentative rapprochement with establishment economics guru and former Clinton Treasury secretary Bob Rubin attracted so little notice. Greider and Rubin sat down last month for a long chat on the state of the economy, the problems of trade, and the dangers of inequality.
REVISITING IRAN-CONTRA. The more I look back on it, the way that the crimes of the Iran-Contra affair came to such an uncertain conclusion, the more it strikes me as a lost opportunity, and not just because so many of the principals are back to screwing up the nation now, 20 years later, although that's a pretty good reason in and of itself. What Iran-Contra resembles is nothing less than an embryonic exercise in the notion, now popular in the lunchroom at the Department of Justice, that the Executive Powers section of the Constitution resembles more closely than anything the operating principles of the Corleone family.