Today’s links to interesting news and analysis. If you find this useful, pass it to a friend or colleague.
- At last the bare bones of a political platform for the Tea Party: “Convention Is Trying to Harness Tea Party Spirit“, New York Times, 6 February 2010 — TP’s want smaller government. But do they have small expecations of what they want government to do for them? That’s the test of their seriousness.
- The future has arrived early: “Rash of retirements pushes Social Security to brink“, USA Today, 7 February 2010
- The news media’s suicide, which Clay Shirkey refuses to see: “Why the Media Ignored a Scandal, Byron York, TownHall, 8 February 2010
- The sisyphean task of rebuttals to war propaganda: “AP Article Fuels Iran War Hysteria“, AnitWar, 8 February 2010
- Rolling the stone back up yet again: “Repeating Pentagon Lies on Gitmo Recidivism“, Andy Worthington, The Future of Freedom Foundation, 8 February 2010
- “How Popular is the Tea Party Movement?”, Matthew Yglesias, ThinkProgress, 9 February 2010
- “Green-Washing – Reports of the Iranian regime’s imminent demise are greatly exaggerated“, Jason Rezaian, Slate, 9 February 2010
- Stimulus programs are only first aid; they only buy time to fix the problems. We’ve not instituted any banking reforms. This tells the sorry story: “OTC Derivatives: Is the DTCC Too Big To Fail?“, Richard C. Whalen (cofounder of co-founder of Institutional Risk Analytics), Zero Hedge, 9 February 2010
- NOAA acts to ensure that policymakers will continue to receive an inappropriately narrow view of our actual knowledge with respect to climate science: “The New National Climate Service“, Roger Pielke Sr, 9 February 2010
- China feels its strength: “China PLA officers urge economic punch against U.S.“, Reuters, 9 February 2010
- Has the New York Times become a blog: “All the News That Fit the Foreign Press Last Month“, Mark Steyn, National Review Online, 9 February 2010 — The NYT’s death wish, visible to everyone except professional journalists.
Today’s features (great excerpts with mild titles):
(A) Conservatives and civil rights, a sad divorce
(B) A great article about the new American populism
(C) Today’s must-read article: “How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America”
(A) Conservatives and civil rights, a sad divorce
“The Ontology of Miranda Rights“, Matthew Yglesias, ThinkProgress, 5 February 2010 — Excerpt:
The underlying issue here, as I’ve been saying, is that conservatives think that any constraint on the state security apparatus is too much. They believe, contrary to all of the evidence, that the rule-bound criminal justice system can’t or doesn’t function and that things would be better if we scrapped all the rules. And, indeed, in the civilian context they’ve worked steadily and systematically over a period of decades to weaken the constitutional protections as much as possible, and bring us as close as possible to their dream scenario of limitless state-sponsored violence. The desire to push certain categories of people (non-citizens) or certain categories of suspects (terrorists) out of the constitutionally protected realm is just part-and-parcel of that broad-based assault on the idea of a rule-bound justice system.
“Couldn’t Happen To Me“, Adam Serwer, blog of The American Prospect, 5 February 2010 — Excerpt:
I don’t really think this part about “certain categories” is peripheral to this argument. Conservatives didn’t merely support “state violence,” William F. Buckley‘s 1957 declaration that the South was “entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where [they do] not predominate numerically.” This was an endorsement of vigilante violence against black people, so that white people might still clutch the reins of power. As long as the violence of the state is being used against a defined other who lacks the defined cultural “birthright,” whether it be an illegal immigrant, a suspected terrorist, or a black kid walking home from school, such state-sponsored violence is inherently legitimate. The mere possibility that the state might use its resources against groups conservatives identify with provokes massive hysteria, and even when such concerns are legitimate, they don’t extend to anyone outside a narrowly defined group. The point is that conservatives don’t so much endorse “limitless” state violence — it’s limited in the sense that it should only be applied to “those people.” This also may help to explain some of the paranoia about Obama’s “re-education camps” and such — for the first time, the head of state is one of “those people.”
(B) A great article about the new American populism
“The Populism Problem“, James Surowiecki, The New Yorker, 15 February 2010 — Brilliant summary of our situation. Please read in full. Here provides clear and compelling examples to support his theory.
It’s been the political equivalent of an intervention: in recent weeks, Democrats have been bombarded with advice about how they should reinvent their economic agenda. The electorate, we hear, wants Barack Obama to be more of an economic populist but less of an ambitious reformer. He has to aggressively create jobs but also be less spendthrift. This advice may be contradictory, but then so are the economic opinions of the many angry voters who are animating what’s being called the new populism. Whereas the economic populism of the eighteen-nineties and the right-wing cultural populism of recent years represented reasonably coherent ideologies, this new populism has stitched together incompatible concerns and goals into one “I’m mad as hell” quilt. The people may have spoken. It’s just not clear that they’re making any sense. …
(C) Today’s must-read article
“How a New Jobless Era Will Transform America“, Don Peck, The Atlantic, March 2010 — Summary:
The Great Recession may be over, but this era of high joblessness is probably just beginning. Before it ends, it will likely change the life course and character of a generation of young adults. It will leave an indelible imprint on many blue-collar men. It could cripple marriage as an institution in many communities. It may already be plunging many inner cities into a despair not seen for decades. Ultimately, it is likely to warp our politics, our culture, and the character of our society for years to come.
Afterword
Please share your comments by posting below. Per the FM site’s Comment Policy, please make them brief (250 word max), civil and relevant to this post. Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).
Also — you can now subscribe, receiving posts by email — see the box on the upper right.
