True enough, BC was hardly a great progressive president and he (and HRC) squandered through political mismanagement most of the opportunities he had, not to mention the embarassment of his Monica indiscretion. However, that does not mean that the right-wing did not go aftrer him/them or that Whitewate was anything but a SHAM SCANDAL.

Posted at January 9, 2008 2:52 PM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

Agree in spades on the media. They are a destestably small-minded, ignorant, cynical, and incompetent lot. Worse, most of them are just shills for the RNC. That's where they get their brilliant questions at the debates--or maybe from some retarded 8 year old they met on the way in.

Anyway, this is why the progressive movement needs a counterpart media system, including print as well as electronic mass outlets. The MSM are beyond redemption as are the elite sycophants at the NYT, WP, etc.

Posted at January 9, 2008 2:25 PM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

Au contraire, barackman. In fact, Obama and Clinton have been appropriating Edwards' ideas and themes. Cf. last night's speeches. And that is why he should stay in. He will force attention to economic/class issues that the others would, albeit for different reasons, just as soon ignore or gloss over. We have to make it clear what this election is about, viz., a choice between two political/economic systems, one serving the interests of the very few, the other (ours) combining opportunity and security for the great majority. Edwards serves this larger purpose, forcing HRC away from a laundry list of incremental programs approach and injecting Obama with a dose of substantive realism.

Besides, it is not beyond imagining that something unknown in the Obama record at this point could cause the Obama wave to dissipate. In which case, Edwards will be well positioned to pick up the banner of transformative change.

Posted at January 9, 2008 2:12 PM in response to How Could the Polls be so Wrong?

One other minor point: The research on authoritarianism as a personality type--whether by Adorno, Rokeach, or the more recent review from the Berkeley Department of Psychology--reveals a startling and well documented overlap in attitude and cognitive style between adherents of conservative ideology and protofascist and and other expressions of antihuman authoritarianism.

Posted at January 8, 2008 4:48 PM in response to At the Times Op Ed Page, the Plot Sickens

I agree Jared, and I don't mean to be utopian. But at the same time, I think an overarching conception of the "good society" is an important ingredient in any strategy for significant progressive advance. Best

Posted at December 25, 2007 10:34 PM in response to Best and Worst of 2007, Economic Policy Version

I concur with everything you say in spades. We desperately need someone to begin framing this election emphasizing policy, philosophy/values, and party reponsibility. It is not, as the MSM would have it, simply a contest between individuals where "character' and worse, "charisma" or "star quality" are primary.

But I have come to the conclusion that Dems are so conditioned to incrementalism they are unable to offer a broader vision of the good society than a laundry list of laudable programs for this or that constituency or problem. And, unfortunately, our leaders are also enthralled in the myth of American superiority or exceptionalism, either because they don't know better or for reasons of politically expedient blather. In any case, the model for a better society for the bulk of the population already exists and has shown its durability and effectiveness. And it is not a return to the New Deal. It is Continental social democracy which combines careful regulation of market forces (including labor markets and oligopolies) with a much wider and deeper variety of public goods and services available without or with much lessened regard to private ability to pay (e.g. mass transit, health care, education, etc.). I am not so naive as to believe American politicians will ever cite Europe as a possible model, nor should they; the model does not fit all US conditions perfectly. But at least, our spokesmen should begin to speak up on behalf of what government can and has accomplished to make life better for all of us, not just the owners of large stocks of capital here as well as abroad. To that end, citing some examples from other societies might be helpful. Also the next Dem Administration should create a process for recognizing and rewarding exceptional public sector performance on both the individual and, more importantly, the institutional level. This might partially offset the MSM focus on scandal and failure, not to mention the right's constant attack on government as at best a necessary evil, but an evil in any form. And surely they can learn to stop maligning bureaucracy and bureaucrats while praising business efficiency.

When big Dems do that they just play into the hands of our adversaries by reinforcing public cynicism about government and possible public solutions to problems affecting the mass public.

Merry Christmas and let's make it a better New Year of all our people, not just the rich.

Posted at December 25, 2007 2:34 PM in response to Best and Worst of 2007, Economic Policy Version

Appropos the need for a "new media ecology." I agree but it must include more than "new media" like blogs, the internet, etc. For one thing, the blogosphere is so differentiated by ideology and party that the opinioin elites involved wind up talking to one another--which has a lot of benefits to be sure. But we need to reach a mass audience. And all the PO research shows that the mass public in this country is uninformed, politically inert and cynical and is therefore easily misled and diverted by the lies and distortions rife in the MSM, not to mention Faux News and clear channel radio. What we need is our own mass communications network comprising a progressive tv news channel or network and a major national print daily as well as complementary regional and local outlets. We should erect our own countervailing institutions to, e.g., CNN/MSNBC/Fox/CBS/NBC/ABC as well as to the NYT/WP/WSJ/ etc . The hallmark of this network would be its unfailing commitment to factual accuracy and coverage of really significant national issues drawing upon people who actually know something about the topic(s).

Something like this already exists in European media, which features print and broadcast media with an avowed ideological/party orientation as well as more "conventional" commercial organs and objective sources like the BBC.

Such a project would go a long way to corrrect the evident antiprogressive bias in rhe current US mass communications system. Half measures like the (unlikely) restoration of the fairness doctrine cannot deliver the change that is needed.

Perhaps G. Soros, W. Buffet, Rob Reiner, et al would find this a useful investment. The rest of us could support with subscriptions, ads, contributions, etc.

Posted at December 22, 2007 4:27 PM in response to Have we been thinking about the Dean Legacy incorrectly?

Thanks Greg, for your work and insight. Your last sentence raises a troubling question. Why is that our candidates have not begun to make this obvious argument? Is it that they are simply too absorbed in the current primary contest? This may account for some of the apparent reticence to slam anyone but Bush, Cheney, and corporations or special interests. But I suspect the problem is more deeply rooted. Perhaps they and their staffs believe they would be criticized by the MSM for being too "partisan" if they laid all these failures at the door of the Republicans and their reactionary and obscrantist allies? Or maybe they are afraid of offending Republicans or those who weakly identify as Republican when asked. Whatever the reason, it all too readily plays into the meme that Dems and Liberals are not tough manly men, won't stand up for themselves or their principles or for the country's interests and, in short, are a bunch of mealy mouthed cowards. This is the drum right wing bully boys and their imitators and allies in the MSM beat all the time, either as explicit theme or nasty subtext.

So I hope that Dem elities begin to realize that playing nice with our adversaries and trying to be above partisanship is a prescription for continued failure.

Posted at December 21, 2007 1:54 PM in response to "Hole-in-the-Head" Conservatism

You are absolutely right. The Dems must make this election about party and policy, not personality. And they, in addtion to your suggestions, should take Alterman's advice and point out everyday that the Republican candidates for President are vying with each other to establish which of them would be more effective/determined/resolute in continuing the Bush Adminstration's philosophy and policy, from Iraq to coddling billiuonaires and stopping scientific advances and undermining free inquiry wherever possible.

Posted at December 20, 2007 3:18 PM in response to "Hole-in-the-Head" Conservatism

I agree with the policy merits of your assertions. Unhappily, I don't think they stand a reasonable chance of enactment, barring an overwhelming Democratic victory in 2008. At a minimum, we would have to have a solid 60 votes in the Senate as well as control of the White House. And 60 solid votes means something like 65 Democrats, give our conservative/business oriented outliers. That is a highly unlikely outcome. And the more I read the bikebiting and attacks on fellow Dems here, the less likely I think winning the
White House becomes. Especially when comments reflect the talking points of the RNC and the stupid and mertricious narratives of the MSM. "Gore is a pompous ass, etc" Besides, the kind of reforms you envision would take years to put into effect, even if we could get them passed the Congress, given FCC rulemaking, court challenges, etc.

So let's play realpolitic for once. The right wing has their propagandada organ (Faux News) and has used it to intimidate and control the agenda of the MSM by beating the old horse about "liberal bias." They of course are fair and ballanced. We need a means to push back, if only to force social problems and issues important to the left onto the agenda by making it impossible for the MSM to ignore or divert attention from them.

Posted at December 17, 2007 4:43 PM in response to There They Go Again