×
- Ed Kilgore has written a thoughtful meditation on the schism between the activists and the pragmatists in the progressive debate over health-care reform and concludes that neither side seems able or willing to understand the other's "ideological and strategic underpinnings." Meanwhile, Nate Silver has posted responses to his 20 questions about killing health-care reform that helpfully illuminate the very ideological and strategic underpinnings separating the ideologies of the activists and the pragmatists.
- Although the Green Lantern theory of the presidency is easily refuted by the most rudimentary knowledge of American political institutions, there is something to be said for the ability of the president to be seen as a fighter and thus strengthen his ties to his political base. Of course, for Barack Obama to be serious about changing Washington, he would have to directly take on Congress' myriad institutional problems, which would make executive-legislative collaboration much more difficult and paralyze the Democrats' domestic policy agenda.
- Far be it for me to challenge the prescience of a Republican pollster I've never heard of, but let's take a moment to savor the fact that in this case "angry white male" is essentially the nom de guerre for "average concerned American voter." And of course, the angry white males even have their own pseudo political party in the form of the tea party movement, animated by ressentiment, and which is apparently "surging" in popularity.
- John Sides reads my mind on the relationship between journalism and political science: "If you are 18 years old and you have been sitting in Political Science 101 for maybe a week or two, you will know more about the separation of powers than is evident among political commentators who act as if presidents make policy. But I will choose not to be depressed, and instead will celebrate how much boilerplate political science is seeping into the mainstream political media." On that subject, Sides' "Three Myths about Political Independents" ought to be required reading.
- Yes, Thomas Friedman is moral monster for egging on a pan-Islam civil war, even though cheerleading bloodshed overseas is hardly an uncommon habit of the elite American commentariat. But Friedman isn't so much advocating a civil war as he is a religious war. He apparently believes the Islamic world needs its own Thirty Years' War to purge extremists (and presumably induce a more secular society) and he is astonishingly obtuse in his ability to juxtapose this insight with his desire to see the people of Islamic world freed to take on self-responsibility.
- Remainders: Foreign Policy rounds up the 10 worst predictions of 2009; just so we're clear, Michael Goldfarb is not a journalist, and The Weekly Standard is the GOP's propaganda arm; everything you need to know about the sunspot-global warming conspiracy theory; no need to warn about the surveillance state, it's already here; the naughties have certainly vindicated the Ownership Society; the public is still very ignorant about the federal budget and deficits; and John Kerry's awesome post-non-presidency.
--Mori Dinauer
