What About Foreign Policy?

James Lindsay tries to draw four lessons from the meager discussion last night of, er, the rest of the world. Among them:

Rick Perry needs to figure out what he means by “military adventurism.” Perry vowed at last week’s VFW national convention to avoid a “foreign policy of military adventurism.” That raised an obvious question: what constitutes “military adventurism”? Harris asked Perry to explain, and the Texas governor didn’t have an answer. He responded at first by saying that he “was making a comment about a philosophy”—without explaining what that philosophy was—and then pivoting to applaud the killing of Osama bin Laden. When Harris pressed him to explain his philosophy, Perry offered empty bromides about having “a clear exit strategy” and never putting “our young men and women’s lives at risk when American interests are not clearly defined.” Perry can expect to hear more questions about military adventurism, perhaps as soon as Monday night’s debate in Tampa.

Jacob Stokes explains Perry's reticence:

Perry knows the wars aren’t selling. He also knows that his advisors were the architects of the sort of “military adventurism” of the last ten years that he was alluding to in his speech to the VFW, where the quote came from. Throwing them under the bus would have provoked a loud outcry—and likely desertion—from neocons in Washington. He tried to thread the needle, but I think it was one of his weakest moments of the night. If these issues have salience with the electorate, which the evidence suggests that they don’t, Perry looked very wishy-washy last night.

He's just caught, as they all are, in a bind. They know the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have been disastrous, but cannot call those responsible for them to account. Because those names would be Bush and Cheney.

App Of The Day

A reader writes:

Here’s a memorial project I think is interesting for the Dish, “110 Stories“. It is part storyboard, part I-phone app.  Sound and vision.  It fills the ghost towers back into the skyline where they stood, from your distance and perspective.

A description from the creator, Brian August:

I’m a life long New Yorker, in love with the City skyline and obsessed with the Screen shot 2011-09-08 at 1.02.11 AM lost iconography of the Twin Towers. In July 2011 I launched 110 Stories on Kickstarter to raise money for the creation of a smARTphone app that would help you orient your phone towards the twin towers, draw in the exact silhouette using augmented reality, take a composited photo, add a personal comment, and share that story with the world.

With the help of 470 backers, $27,809 in funding, a team of 25 amazing people, top members of the technology, social media, art and business communities, as well as two of the world’s leading tech companies, both the iPhone and Android versions are now a reality. Let the stories begin…

Poisoning The Well Of Public Service

The reflections of Mike Lofgren, a former GOP congressional staffer, have been the talk of the liberal blogosphere recently (see posts by Benen, Tomasky, and Bernstein). A taste of Lofgren's piece:

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner. A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media.

Fallows gets another staffer to comment:

Privately, many of us who have worked in Congress since before the Clinton Administration have been complaining about the loss of the respect for the institution by the Members who were elected to serve their constituents through the institution. I don't think people realize how fragile democracy really is. The 2012 campaign is currently looking to be the final nail in the coffin unless people start to understand what is going on.

Fallows has exhaustively covered the Lofgren cri de coeur here, here and here.

Obama’s Moment Of Truth

OBAMARAINRoslanRahman:Getty

It comes tonight, in the midst of by far the worst reviews of his presidency and the real chance of a double-dip recession ending it after one term. The left is livid; Dowd keeps reiterating her Obambi mockery; and he's apparently lost the Hamptons! (yes, that was a joke.) I don't think anyone can deny the gravity of the crisis he inherited on many fronts, foreign and domestic, or the things he cannot control (tsunamis in Japan, debt crises in Europe, an opposition defined by hatred of him) but that doesn't mean he will or should be excused for another economic after-shock after the 2007 – 2009 Great Recession.

I find much of the criticism overblown. Partly that's because I have yet to hear an account of what he should have done by his conservative critics. They seem to suggest he should have passed no stimulus, bailed out no banks or auto-companies, and let the economy heal itself over time. It's an interesting thesis, I suppose, if you can wipe your memory banks of 2008/2009. At the time, there was a sense of total emergency as the entire global financial system looked as if it could go under. It didn't. Nor did the US economy enter a very frightening downward spiral. To dismiss Obama's stabilization of a plane headed toward crashing seems terribly unfair to me.

But let's say Rick Perry had been president: no stimulus, no auto bailout, no payroll tax cut, no extension of unemployment benefits. Does anyone think that unemployment would be lower today than it is? Surely it would have been much much worse, even if you take a dim view of the content of the 2009 – 2010 stimulus. Does anyone think that any president, Democrat or Republican, would have risked a second Great Depression when offered ways to mitigate it?

But what's accurate about the criticism is that Obama has not (yet) told a story of the last three years that resonates. Instead the rightwing noise machine has drowned out reality with an alternate set of non-facts. The sheer fantasies and lies about Obama's record on display last night really do shock the conscience. Romney was among them [NYT]:

“We are an energy-rich nation and we’re living like an energy-poor nation,” [Romney] said, asserting that Mr. Obama had halted offshore drilling, blocked construction of new coal plants, slowed development of nuclear plants and failed to develop natural gas trapped in shale formations.

But those claims are largely untrue. While Mr. Obama declared a moratorium on deep-water drilling in the Gulf of Mexico after the BP spill in 2010, the government began granting permits again earlier this year and activity is approaching pre-spill levels. The administration recently announced a major lease sale in the western Gulf of Mexico and gave provisional approval to a Shell project in the Arctic off the coast of Alaska. And while a number of utilities have canceled plans to build new coal plants, that is largely because demand for electricity has slowed, not because of new federal regulations.

But when did you last hear an Obama official touting that? I was watching Hannity the other night (they pay me) and he said that when the president offered a tax cut to help the economy, he'd back him 100 percent. Really? One third of the hated stimulus was tax cuts. Obama is now proposing an extension of the payroll tax cut. Tax revenues are at their lowest in fifty years and tax rates are lower than under Reagan. Obama even agreed to extend the Bush tax cuts for two more years. If tax cuts are the solution, why aren't we booming?

And yet somehow the Fox Propaganda Machine has just continued to portray Obama as the only candidate they know how to run against: a crazy big government liberal, taxing the country to death. Joe Klein regards this as a political failing on Obama's part:

If he were [a top-drawer politician], we’d be talking about the Obama tax cuts–there have been two big ones–instead of the “failed” Obama stimulus package; the Obama Senior Citizen prescription drug benefit (he closed the donut hole), universal health coverage that you can never lose instead of death panels; the Detroit auto boom as a path to a revival of manufacturing. Most important, we’d be talking about jobs instead of deficits. We would never have played the Republican deficit follies these past nine months. He would be defining the political arena. Instead, the Republicans are.

But the deficit and debt do matter if only because they are undermining any confidence in the long term stability of the American polity and economy. I don't think Obama was wrong to tackle it, just too cautious in not nailing himself to the Bowles-Simpson mast while offering concrete proposals to help jobs now. As to the rest, Joe is right. The gap between what has actually happened and the narrative the right has been able to propagate about it is dangerously wide.

But that gap means one thing: if an accurate, compelling counter-narrative emerges, a real revival is possible. And one thing I have long observed about Obama is his willingness to stay on the ropes longer than seems wise or possible. That's the pattern, obscured by his meteoric political success. But then, time after time, he has often managed to pull out of it with a speech that returns the country to reality, an argument that is very hard to counter, and a set of proposals that are often commonsensical. Recall his healthcare address after the Tea Party revolt in the summer of 2009. Recall where it led: passage of national universal health insurance.

This time, it's much harder. The deeper economic forces are bleak for any incumbent anywhere in the West; the rubric of change ends when you have been in office for almost three years. The lack of a strong recovery has understandably unnerved people. But I believe Americans are a fair bunch and will give him a hearing (they still like him a lot, despite the approval ratings slide). What he needs to do is not just offer proposals that would be suicidal for the GOP to oppose, but to give us a narrative of where we've come and where we are going. He has one – and put the right way, it's compelling.

This, after all, is a president who has ended the war in Iraq, killed Osama bin Laden, passed universal health insurance, rescued Detroit, stabilized an economy in free-fall, dispatched Qaddafi, deftly presided over a democratic transformation in the Middle East, and guided the political system toward a far more honest assessment of our fiscal crisis. He has quite a story to tell. He just needs the audacity to tell it.

Well, tonight we'll see the first attempt. What ultimately forges a presidency is how it responds to the moment when it is getting pummeled. Good luck, Mr President. This time, you'll need it.

Monogamy On The Rise

The chat above between Dan and Ross is really priceless. The body language alone is revealing. Again, it occurs to me that Dan is actually dealing with the real world where Ross is grappling with an ideal world. To my mind, conservatism deals with reality, not abstractions or doctrines. Speaking of which, despite our best efforts, gays still haven't ruined marriage. Au contraire:

Twenty-eight percent of straight men in 1975 had sex with a woman outside of their marriage, but in 2000, it was only 10 percent. For straight, married women, the rate dropped from 23 percent to 14 percent. For gay men, 83 percent to 59 percent, and for lesbians, 28 percent to 8 percent.

It's important to note that the latest survey only contained 782 respondents, while the original contained 6,082. When you only have 700 in the study, the number of gays is going to be very small. But the pattern rings true to me. Straight men lie – do we really believe their fidelity is greater than their wives'? Lesbians exert exactly the same influence as straight women in marriage – the monogamy rates are very similar, even though lesbians get a technical first place in the monogamy department. Gay men, being men, are the most likely to "cheat" but, being men, cheating is not always understood as a deal-breaker for a committed relationship.

But what's more interesting is the trend through time. Even with the caution over the stats, how do you explain such steep drops in non-monogamy among gay couples without noting the impact of marriage, which has uniquely driven gay culture these past two decades? None of the couples involved is in a civil marriage, but even among those just cohabiting or in civil unions, the cultural shift has had an impact. So why shouldn't "social conservatives" not support this reform, rather than treating it as a litmus test for Satanism? If we saw infidelity drops like these among, say, African-Americans, would not conservatives cheer? Amanda Marcotte has another theory:

Monogamy rates are probably rising, hard as it may seem to believe, because of sexual liberation. People are cheating less because people are less desperate and unsatisfied. Nowadays you're expected and even encouraged to delay marriage and childbirth and spend your youth experimenting both sexually and in relationships, and so now people who make commitments have both gotten some of the curiosity out of their systems, and they have a better idea of what will make them happy when they do settle down.

That gets it about right. Then this:

Roisman says his research about relationship satisfaction, relationship quality and commitment among same-sex and opposite-sex couples published in 2008 and 2009 found that past perceptions about same-sex couples are "not always aligned with the reality." "What we found surprised some — that they had relationships of about the same quality" as heterosexual couples, he says.

Imagine that. Gays are human beings, who need to love and be loved. What a concept.

The Abandonment Of Reagan

Sally Kohn exposes how far the GOP has drifted from their nominal idol:

Basically, Reagan was a giant disappointment for arch-conservatives. He did little to tighten restrictions against abortion as president and actually passed pro-choice legislation as governor of California. He grew the size of the federal government tremendously, adding 60,000 new government jobs (versus, for instance, Bill Clinton, who shrank government payrolls by 373,000). As governor of California, Reagan supported and ultimately expanded Medi-Cal, which is the nation’s largest Medicaid program. Both as governor and president, he was one of the most proactive presidents in restricting smog emissions and protecting wilderness. And after his press secretary was shot during an assassination attempt against him, the president came out in support of stricter gun-control laws.

Massie, mouth agape, watches Bush I and Reagan debate immigration.

The GOP’s Moment Of Truth

Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith put the Perry and Romney battle in context:

Some of [the GOP's] leaders, looking back at the 2010 midterm elections, believe that the party – and the nation – are ready to gorge on red meat as never before. The American people, goes this line of thinking, recognize that entitlements must be addressed and that old-style demagoguery over the issue has become less effective.

Others believe deeply that the laws of political gravity still apply – that Social Security and Medicare reform must be handled with great care, if at all, and that 2012 will hinge on jobs-focused swing voters who are in no mood to revisit the still-popular New Deal-era program during a time of economic uncertainty. The divide is both strategic and ideological, and as Romney and Perry emerge clearly as the party’s two presidential poles on the issue …

Douthat echoes:

Based on last night’s performance, Rick Perry intends to run as exactly the kind of presidential candidate that many leading conservatives insist that the country wants and needs. In four months time, we’ll begin to find out if they’re right.

The Cheering Of Killing

Steve Benen is appalled. Marcy Wheeler thinks Brian Williams dropped the ball by not bringing up Willingham by name. TNC sighs:

Apparently people were shocked by the applause here. The only thing that shocked me was that they didn't form a rumba line. It's a Republican debate. And it's America. Perry's right–most people support the death penalty. It's the job of those of us who oppose the death penalty to change that.

The CW has this exchange as Perry's best of the night, and most of the right appears to be with the crowd. K-Lo can barely bring herself to mention the issue, though other Catholic theocons appear to be grappling with it. For Catholics, the blithe dismissal by Perry of any qualms, sleepless nights or doubts in condemning 234 people to death should, in my view, be a salient matter. The Church is clear that there might very very very rarely be an exception that allows for the death penalty; but no theocon can possibly endorse Perry's utter indifference to the gravity of the act, or his refusal to admit that at least one of those executed was an innocent man.

Still, theocons will live with it. If your ultimate goal is power, not truth, you can live with a lot.