What Would Hillary Clinton Have Done?

Rebecca Traister:

The empirical choice between Clinton and Obama was never as direct as those on either side made it out to be; neither was obviously more equipped or more progressive than the other. The maddening part, then and now, is that they were utterly comparable candidates. The visions — in 2008, of Obama as a progressive redeemer who would restore enlightened democracy to our land and Hillary as a crypto-Republican company man; or, in 2011, of Obama as an appeasement-happy crypto-Republican and Hillary as a leftist John Wayne who would have whipped those Congressional outlaws into shape — they were all invented. These are fictional characters shaped by the predilections, prejudices and short memories of the media and the electorate. They’re not actual politicians between whom we choose here on earth.

I’ve wondered more than once over the last few years if Hillary would have been better equipped to deal with the intransigence of today’s extreme conservative Republican Party. This article makes a good case that such exercises aren’t terribly illuminating.

No Easy Answer on Income-Tax Issue

No Easy Answer on Income-Tax Issue

The Christian Right’s Consistent Misunderstanding of the American Revolution

From a profile of Michele Bachmann in this week’s New Yorker:

Later that year, [the Bachmanns] experienced a second life-altering event: they watched a series of films by the evangelist and theologian Francis Schaeffer called “How Should We Then Live?”

Schaeffer, who ran a mission in the Swiss Alps known as L’Abri (“the shelter”), opposed liberal trends in theology. One of the most influential evangelical thinkers of the nineteen-seventies and early eighties, he has been credited with getting a generation of Christians involved in politics. Schaeffer’s film series consists of ten episodes tracing the influence of Christianity on Western art and culture, from ancient Rome to Roe v. Wade. In the films, Schaeffer—who has a white goatee and is dressed in a shearling coat and mountain climber’s knickers—condemns the influence of the Italian Renaissance, the Enlightenment, Darwin, secular humanism, and postmodernism. He repeatedly reminds viewers of the “inerrancy” of the Bible and the necessity of a Biblical world view. “There is only one real solution, and that’s right back where the early church was,” Schaeffer tells his audience. “The early church believed that only the Bible was the final authority. What these people really believed and what gave them their whole strength was in the truth of the Bible as the absolute infallible word of God.”

The American Revolution was very much an Enlightenment revolution. Ideas we cherish and that are embodied in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, from freedom of speech and religion, to restrictions on state police power, to a popularly elected government, were the result of political theory that emerged during the Enlightenment as a rejection of traditional European oligarchies.

Bachmann, Rick Perry, and others on the Christian right consistently miss this point. Worse, they misunderstand the religious views of the American Founders, usually to justify advancing their own religiously-motivated political agenda. As a simple refutation of this, I offer the first few paragraphs of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;
that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

When people like Schaeffer reject the Enlightenment and other cornerstones of modern Western political thought, they are very much rejecting the founding principles of the United States. Bachmann and others that seek to govern this country should be reminded of this simple fact at every opportunity.

Michele Bachmann’s first answer was, I wish the federal government had defaulted. Had defaulted! A week after Americans lost–some of them perhaps lost half of their pensions. Lost half of their 401ks. When trillions of dollars went down the drain with Americans suffering, she said that and got applause, and if anybody thinks that guys like my dad are going to be voting that way…they are out of their mind and they are too stupid not only to prognosticate, they are too stupid to run Slurpee machines in Des Moines…Michele Bachmann is a joke. She is a joke. Her answer is a joke. Her candidacy is a joke…Iowa, if you let her win, you prove your irrelevance once again.

“I don’t want to get too far ahead of the process,” he explained to the Wall Street Journal’s Laura Meckler, adding that Obama “will be contributing to that process, not driving it or directing it.”

“Why?” inquired Politico’s Glenn Thrush. “He’s the leader of the free world. Why isn’t he leading this process?”

I’m Tired of Democrats Having No Message

Earlier today S&P downgraded US debt from AAA to AA+. It’s on the front page of The Wall Street Journal’s home page, with a “live blog” section containing the following quote:

Washington weighs in, with Boehner blaming a Washington spending binge, and Pelosi focusing on transparency on the deficit special committee.

A few problems here:

  1. Notice how Boehner’s message is clear. It’s stupid and wrong, but it’s clear and easy for people to understand and exactly what you would expect him to say.
  2. What the fuck is the Pelosi statement supposed to mean? Do most people even know what the fuck the deficit special committee is, or why it might have a problem with transparency?
  3. Where the fuck is the White House? Why isn’t there a statement from Obama?

Why can’t the Democrats put together a coherent message on anything?

The Centuries Old Fight Against America’s Southern-dominated Right Wing

Michael Lind, writing about the domination of the Tea Party by Southern whites:

The mainstream media have completely missed the story, by portraying the Tea Party movement in ideological rather than regional terms. Whether by accident or design, the public faces of the Tea Party in the House are Midwesterners – Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann and Joe Walsh of Illinois. But while there may be Tea Party sympathizers throughout the country, in the House of Representatives the Tea Party faction that has used the debt ceiling issue to plunge the nation into crisis is overwhelmingly Southern in its origins:

The Tea Party, the debt ceiling, and white Southern extremism

The rhetorical shrillness and political intransigence of the Tea Party has been particularly conspicuous since they started making news after Obama’s inauguration. This militant posture is not new among movement conservatives, however. Indeed, extreme rigidity in both tone and substance has been notable since at least the “Republican Revolution” of 1994, if not before. Recall, for example, the impeachment of a President for only the second time in U.S. history over a controversy that clearly didn’t involve any major issues of national policy, or national security, or civil rights, or economic management.

This is not a quality shared equally by both sides, despite the anodyne insistence of mainstream pundits to the contrary. I’ll repeat a quote by George Packer I posted back in February on the heels of the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt:

In fact, there is no balance—none whatsoever. Only one side has made the rhetoric of armed revolt against an oppressive tyranny the guiding spirit of its grassroots movement and its midterm campaign. Only one side routinely invokes the Second Amendment as a form of swagger and intimidation, not-so-coyly conflating rights with threats. Only one side’s activists bring guns to democratic political gatherings. Only one side has a popular national TV host who uses his platform to indoctrinate viewers in the conviction that the President is an alien, totalitarian menace to the country. Only one side fills the AM waves with rage and incendiary falsehoods. Only one side has an iconic leader, with a devoted grassroots following, who can’t stop using violent imagery and dividing her countrymen into us and them, real and fake. Any sentient American knows which side that is; to argue otherwise is disingenuous.

This bullying culture is not new in the South. Indeed, it’s as old as the republic. Lind cites a number of examples in his piece, from nullification to the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln gave his famous speech at Cooper Union that launched him into national prominence. He described Southern demands on the North in a way that resonates strongly whenever I hear about the latest demands from the Tea Party 1:

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

Sound familiar?

If the nature of the enemy didn’t hit home for Obama during the stimulus vote, the health care battle, or the tax cut “compromise,” it should be loud and clear now. The bullying isn’t going to stop. The only question now for Democrats and liberals is what, if anything, they’re going to do about it.


  1. Keep in mind that the Republican Party in 1860 was the party of the North, and the Democratic Party was the party of the South. The geographic bases of the parties began a 40 year switch that’s only now completing after Southern Democrats bolted in response to the party’s eventual support of the Civil Rights Movement.