Month: April 2009

Meanwhile, In Britain

As the GOP entrenches itself as the anti-gay party, the gay vote in Britain has swung dramatically in favor of the Tories, who now lead Labour in the polls among gays by 30 to 18 percent. If the right were to return to limited government and inclusion, many gays would follow. But the hatred and contempt for gay Americans keeps getting in the way.

The Palin-Johnston Feud

Jason Zengerle wants us to play nice:

Palin critics like Andrew and Amanda Marcotte are relishing the Johnston-Palin brouhaha as an example of Republican class politics backfiring. But I think this whole situation is a lot more basic than that. If you watch Levi's interviews with Tyra Banks and CBS, what you'll see is a kid who had a baby and then had a falling out with the baby's mother (and her mother) and is now desperate to still play a role in his son's life–which is something his son's mom and her family don't seem very eager for him to do. I realize that the prominence of the people involved makes this a very tabloid-ish tale, but I think it's a human one, too. And I wish the left and the right would remember that as they turn this family feud into spectator sport. (Fat chance, I know.)

I would assume that the responsibility for making this a "spectator sport" lies with those who placed this family drama front and center in the last campaign as a reason to vote for McCain-Palin.

I also assume that Jason knows that no one on the right or left pushed Bristol and Tripp into the arms of Greta van Susteren, or forced Levi onto the Tyra Banks show or CBS in the morning and no one forced Palin to send out a brutal press release attacking Levi before the Tyra show even aired. And now we are all supposed not to notice?

It cannot be fair for a national politician to run on family values and abstinence, to put her own family, and even a special needs infant, on national television as a vote-getting ploy, to tell the world that a marriage is in the works for her teen mom daughter, then trash the father of her grandson … and then complain when the media covers it!

Dissent Of The Day

A reader writes:

I'll preface this by saying that on the issue of gay marriage, I completely agree with your position on legalization. That being said, I read your post on the National Review, and it displayed something about your argument that I've never really realized before, something a bit disturbing. What about the people, like me, who don't seek marriage as a path to social acceptance?

I am a heterosexual, not currently in a committed relationship, but always on the lookout for one. But at the same time, for myself personally, I don't believe in marriage. When I tell people this, I often receive the same skeptical looks that I'm guessing you receive when you talk to people about your views on gay marriage, and in many cases, even hostility. The fact that my belief on this matter is partly motivated by my agnosticism doesn't help matters, but my point is: when you talk about "social incentives for stable relationships" and ask questions like, "Do you think that straight men would be more or less socially responsible without the institution of civil marriage?" it sounds like an affront to the way of life I have freely chosen.

I get that gay people should be allowed to marry, and should absolutely be included in society as equals, but you seem to be implying, perhaps unintentionally, that being married, not just having the right to marry, is essential to social equality. I could have misinterpreted you here, but if not, where does this leave me? Am I not being socially responsible because I choose not to marry?

No, I'm not implying such a thing. The data show that marriage is good for people in general – but not all people. It's the right to marry that is essential to civil equality and social responsibility.

The Next Oil Boom

Ryan Avent advocates again for a carbon tax:

We could pass a substantial gas tax increase now to take effect in two or three years. In expectation of the increase, consumers would purchase more fuel efficient automobiles, potentially boosting auto sales and reducing vulnerability to high oil prices. And I’m sure I don’t even need to say that a program of rapid expansion of transit and passenger and freight rail capacity, funded immediately by deficit spending and after recovery by gas and congestion taxes, would kill multiple birds with one stone — providing stimulus, facilitating structural shifts, and reducing exposure to rising oil prices.

Rising oil is a threat. It will slow or kill recovery, and depending on how the Fed reacts it could generate uncomfortably high levels of inflation. And it’s not like getting off of oil is in anyway counter to long-term goals; climate change perpetually looms in the background. Let’s see some attention paid to this.

The Unrepentant Bushies

ROVEMASKBillPugliano:Getty

Another point is worth making about Karl Rove and Michael Gerson and Pete Wehner, all active members of an administration that added more spending, more debt and more government to America than any since LBJ. They were all dismissive and contemptuous of criticisms that their administration was fiscally reckless. Rove will say and write anything, of course, so expecting any kind of personal responsibility for the fiscal wreckage on his watch would be de trop, but seriously, it's still amazing that a man with his record can write this with a straight face:

It was the concern of independents and "soft partisans" about national debt and spending that gave rise to Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election. More significantly, independents angry about deficits and spending were the key swing bloc in the 1994 congressional races, where Republicans picked up eight Senate seats and 54 House seats, winning their first House majority since 1955.

This is the same Rove who said to my face in 2001, as I complained about debt, that "deficits don't matter" and that "the public doesn't vote on deficits." As for Gerson, at least he has this fig leaf:

I am not generally a deficit hawk. A government can run a responsible deficit in a growing economy — and may have to run one to counteract an economic downturn. But Obama's proposed level of debt is irresponsible.

But adding an unfunded $32 trillion entitlement – which is part of the debt load that Obama projects over the next ten years – never prompted a twitch of anxiety when Bush did it.

We will indeed need to address entitlement and defense spending for the long term once this crisis is past. The long-term budget forecasts from Obama are indeed intolerable. But the president himself has said he intends to tackle this, and brought many Repiublicans into the tent at an early fiscal responsibloity summit. He spent more time with Congressional Republicans in the stimulus package debate than Bush did. For all this, he will be tarred as a radical, polarizing extremist. Projection, again.

Another Kristol Confirmed

Just checking to see who will be running conservative journalism in the future. Understanding the conservative movement is like analyzing the Hapsburgs.

As for the content of the piece, it was fine if utterly unremarkable and banal. You'll notice, however, that Kristol and West (another neocon scion perhaps?) duck the core issue: the ban on gays in the military. One way to bring Harvard back into the military mainstream, which is indeed an important goal, would be to end rank discrimination. Kristol's own generation overwhelmingly supports lifting the ban, as does the general public. But the op-ed returns to a hackneyed attempt to make this another 1968 moment. Was Karl Rove Kristol Jr's mentor?