Month: September 2013

The Best Deal The US Is Going To Get

Julia Ioffe observes that the UN Syria deal “is in fact a compromise, and, as such, it is a half-measure–even if, this day in age, half-measures are themselves quite the victory.” She looks at the agreement from Putin’s perspective:

The Russians can … say that they have upheld international norms protecting national sovereignty and insuring against unilateral military action. And whereas American policy on Syria has been mercurial and ever-changing, the Russians’ goal has been steadfast for the entire duration of the Syrian civil war: blocking American military intervention. This resolution, because it tables the use of force and kicks that can down the road, allows them to do that.

Most important, the Russians emerge from this latest scuffle as the world’s master diplomats and, finally, as America’s geopolitical equals.

This has been a major Russian goal—and a major reason for its zealous use of the Security Council veto—for the last decade: restoring Russia as a powerful global dealmaker. “Russia is not a vegetarian country,” says [Dmitri] Trenin [the director of the Carnegie Center in Moscow]. “It is not against the use of force. It just wants the use of force to happen with Russia’s approval. Putin wants these things done on an equal footing, not that he’s just helping America pursue its own agenda and getting commission for it.” Reserving the right to veto any future consequences for Assad’s potential violations of Resolution 2118 allows Russia to maintain this equal footing.

Larison points out that Russia would have vetoed a stronger resolution:

The language of the draft resolution is being treated as proof that Russia now “dominates” the Security Council. That sounds very dramatic, but I’m not sure that it makes much sense. Russia previously vetoed every Syria resolution no matter how “toothless” and unenforceable it happened to be, and now it appears to be willing to support one. That represents a modest shift in Russia’s position away from its previous pattern of vetoing everything that the other members proposed. I suppose one can call this Russian “dominance” of the Council if one wants, but it is the same “dominance” that every permanent member can have when it is willing to use its veto to shield a client from U.N. penalties.

Just Your Average Muslims

The Muslims Are Coming! documents Muslim comedians on tour in the American South and West. Noah Berlatsky finds the film boring – which is a good thing:

The film has some pro forma talking points about the importance of humor for breaking down barriers and revealing truths and etc. etc. But really it feels like the lack of humor is the real connection here. Anyone can stand up on stage and be unfunny; mediocrity, by definition, connects us all. And if the filmmakers here seem to be pushing that mediocrity to extremes, that fits too. Towards the end of the movie, [co-director and co-star Negin] Farsad talks about how her parents loved the United States before they ever came here; how they, and immigrants like them, give up everything because this is the place they want to raise their children. The idea that immigrants are the most American of Americans isn’t new or surprising, but the fact that it isn’t new or surprising seems like it’s the point. The Muslims are coming, the documentary tells us, and when they get here, it will be utterly unexciting.

The Tea Party’s Powerful Allies

Reihan fears that they are damaging the Republican party:

My sense is that the disarray and dysfunction currently on display in Congress flows from campaign finance regulations that have weakened broad-based, national political parties while strengthening solo political entrepreneurs. Many of us hope that some future Republican presidential nominee will be able to impose order on the GOP’s congressional wing. But it is just as easy for me to imagine a popular Republican president facing ferocious attacks from a minority of opportunistic legislators aided by allied independent expenditure groups.

Carney explains how outside groups apply pressure:

In Washington, it’s called the “inside-outside game”: Beltway players reach out to the grassroots to apply pressure to elected officials. When Cruz and friends do it, I call it the Tea Party Whip Operation. … Often the Tea Party Whip Operation involves outside groups such as the Senate Conservatives Fund, Heritage Action, the Club for Growth, and FreedomWorks. And these groups’ involvement is what really upsets other Republicans.

Dickerson thinks the actions of these groups helps explain why Cruz is loathed by so many of his collegues:

Cruz says he has not attacked Republicans specifically, but in his alliance with Jim DeMint, the former South Carolina senator and now president of the Heritage Foundation, he has done something more powerful. He has helped raise money to run advertisements against incumbent Republican senators.

Zeke Miller profiles Heritage Action:

Republican leadership fears it will bear the blame for government shutdown, endangering vulnerable Republicans in 2014. But for Heritage and its allies, the resonance of their message is more than a moral victory. “I think that this campaign has already been very successful in the sense that we’ve driven the narrative in the last two months about how Obamacare is literally falling apart,” Needham says. “There’s been huge national attention in the media and the grassroots. That’s a great thing for the country and a great thing for us.”

The Debt Ceiling Lacks A Shutoff Switch

A government shutdown won’t significantly delay hitting the debt ceiling:

Unlike the last government shutdowns, which came in December 1995 and January 1996, the current showdown comes at the start of a new fiscal year. October and November are important months for federal spending, with large mandatory expenditures. [Steve Bell, the senior director of economic policy for the Bipartisan Policy Center] said that regardless of a shutdown, he expects the Treasury’s extraordinary measures, which have allowed the government to manage its debt without raising the debt limit, will become insufficient to meet the government’s obligations between October 18 and November 5.

Ezra hopes that powerful interests, such as Wall Street, will force the GOP to make a deal:

One way a shutdown makes the passage of a debt limit increase easier is that it can persuade outside actors to come off the sidelines and begin pressuring the Republican Party to cut a deal. One problem in the politics of the fiscal fight so far is that business leaders, Wall Street, voters and even many pundits have been assuming that Republicans and Democrats will argue and carp and complain but work all this out before the government closes down or defaults. A shutdown will prove that comforting notion wrong, and those groups will begin exerting real political pressure to force a resolution before a default happens.

Drum asks, “what will it take to end the debt ceiling crisis?”:

Here’s a guess: a stock market crash. If we really and truly breach the debt limit without a resolution, markets will probably go crazy. In fact, they might go especially crazy because they seem so sure that it won’t happen. But that’s the one thing that always seems to get everyone’s attention. You can have failing banks, massive ranks of the unemployed, and auto giants going bankrupt—and Congress will twiddle its thumbs. But let the Dow fall a thousand points or three, and suddenly they spring into action. There are lots of ways this could end, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that turns out to be the winner.

Beyond Pink Jerseys

Shawnee Barton is happy with the NFL’s ongoing push for more female fans, but she hopes the organization will start thinking beyond marketing:

Judging by media coverage, dollars spent (according to the NFL, women’s apparel spending went up 76 percent in the last three years), and the much-talked-about football fashion spread in the September issue of Vogue, it would appear these efforts are working. (Though in 2011, Katie Baker smartly argued that the rise of female football fans more likely results from sports and popular culture increasingly blurring than it does from savvy NFL marketing efforts.)

I love a form-fitting, logo-emblazoned throwback blazer as much as the next gal. And it’s understandable that the NFL tries to boil female interest down to clichés—marketing, after all, is marketing. Yet the focus on merchandising both misses the real reasons women watch sports and forgoes an opportunity to engage them in far more meaningful—and for the NFL, lucrative—ways. If league execs spent as much time bettering the stadium and fan experience for women and families as they did contemplating how to get Condi to model her Browns jersey, pro football could win over more female fans, keep the avid ones it already has, and transform casual female consumers into lifelong, diehard fans.

Sarah Maiellano suggests repealing a recent security policy mandating “see-thru” handbags for women as a good place to start:

We want the option to carry our handbags. Our pants and skirts don’t always have pockets. We don’t want other fans to see our personal items. We are concerned about theft either in the stadium or on public transportation home. We are worried that we won’t be able to fit items like diapers, tampons, or nursing pads in tiny purses. We don’t feel like swapping purses to attend a game. We don’t own a small clutch and don’t want to pay for a new clear bag. We don’t want to carry a Ziploc bag because it has no handle and, frankly, looks stupid.

The new rule was implemented as both a safety measure and a way to speed up the entry process. Those are admirable goals. But they need to be balanced and reasonable. What seems reasonable to a group of men may not to women. According to the NFL, 35% of those who attend games are women and more than 50% of women say they watch regular season games. The league has made strides in marketing its merchandise to women. But the NFL’s female fans deserve more than lip service when it comes to this war on purses.

Marriage Equality Update

Late last week, a New Jersey judge ruled in favor of marriage equality, arguing that civil unions are insufficient. Mark Joseph Stern reacts:

The New Jersey ruling is one of several to cite the Supreme Court’s momentous DOMA decision in questioning or overturning gay marriage bans. But this case is unique: Judge Jacobson relies exclusively on the state’s constitution, allowing the issue to avoid federal courts and, more importantly, the Supreme Court. At most, the case will rise to the state’s own Supreme Court. And, given that institution’s liberal bent, it’s quite likely that this new chapter of gay rights in New Jersey will also be the last.

In response to the ruling, Nathaniel Frank spells out why the word “marriage” is so important:

Being married is not just a contractual status among two people but a collective identity. Its power lies in its symbolic authority to reinforce individuals’ commitments because the wider community around them knows what you should and shouldn’t be doing. Marriage functions in this regard as a collective superego by establishing widely shared norms and expectations that strengthen obligations to spouses and children.

But none of this works if you’re just “civil-unioned.” Indeed, marriage is such contested terrain precisely because opponents of gay marriage know the word matters—notwithstanding New Jersey’s incoherent effort to argue that gays should just calm down since labels don’t make a whit of difference.

Hating On Hate Crimes Laws

Based on my comments during the Book of Matt series we just ran, a reader asks:

Are you seriously opposed to hate crime laws? Maybe I misunderstood you. Here’s why simply enforcing “regular assault” laws is inadequate when the motive is hate:

A hate crime is, by definition, designed to strike fear into a group/community of people – not just a single victim.  A punch in the face that is motivated by the fact that the victim is gay, or black, Jewish, or whatever, is an attack on the entire group of similar people (a minority group).

If your response is limited to the impact on the single victim, you’re still off-base: of course the intent of the perpetrator matters.  That is why we differentiate between say, manslaughter and first degree murder: intent.  The victim in all cases is equally dead.

My basic stance on hates crimes is seen above.  For more, you can read my NYT Magazine cover-story from 1999, “What’s So Bad About Hate?” Another reader is on my side of the issue:

According to a 2009 study (pdf), 88% of criminologists don’t believe the death penalty is a deterrent to homicides, with 87% saying getting rid of the death penalty would have no significant effect on murder rates, with 75% saying that “debates about the death penalty distract Congress and state legislatures from focusing on real solutions to crime problems.” So, if death isn’t a deterrent, it makes no sense that a longer sentence (if you are found guilty of the crime) would affect any change in behavior.

Another differs:

One of the reasons that crimes of power occur is precisely because the majority offenders carry in their bank of experiences the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promises associated with their power. To whit: that they will NOT be prosecuted according to the normal standards, and that they will NOT be held to account for their actions, precisely because the actions were taken against the powerless.

Regrettable? Of course. It would be great if every assault were prosecuted as assault. But consider Trayvon Martin:

whatever you think of the acquittal of George Zimmerman, it is beyond doubt that he would not have been charged at all for the basic crime were it not for the public pressure applied in pursuit of a trial. Similarly with Matthew Shepard, that the defendants were found guilty and put in prison does not prove that the “system works.” It might prove that, but it could equally prove that public pressure around the death of Shepard encouraged authorities to act on the crime, rather than brushing it away or letting it rest.

I’m with you in theory on hate crimes; yes, in an ideal world, it would be great if the powerful were brought to account for the face-value crime they have committed. But that ideal world is not this world, and hate-crimes statutes have the effect of communicating clearly to privileged groups that crimes against those without a voice are not tolerated – and they have the added effect, when they are on the books at the federal level, of allowing the federal government to take the case out of the hands of local authorities who might be actively impeding the investigation and prosecution of such crimes.

Any rational account of how we hold murders and assailants accountable must, quite clearly, take stock of these power dynamics. Failing to do so is to miss the attainable good in favor of the unattainable perfect.

Another adds:

One of the the primary benefits of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is that it authorizes the Justice Department to provide financial grants to state and local law enforcement to cover the extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes, as well as authorizing the provision of grants for local programs to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs that train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting and preventing hate crimes. If news reporting at the time was accurate, the Laramie police department had to lay off five police officers and the department nearly went bankrupt trying the criminals involved.

More thoughts from readers here.

The Most Morally Questionable Abortions

After Tiller directors Martha Shane and Lana Wilson didn’t shy away from them:

The late-term abortions that are most common and easiest to empathize with – the ones with severe fetal abnormalities – were covered extensively in our reader series, “It’s So Personal.” Such stories also feature prominently in After Tiller.

Last week Martha and Lana’s discussed their film project and what inspired them to tackle it. After Tiller is now playing in New York, and on Friday it will open in Los Angeles and Toronto, followed by many more cities. Trailer here. Reviews here. Previous Dish coverage of the film here and here.

Threatening To Destroy America Is No Way To Negotiate

Yglesias makes an apt analogy regarding negotiation with the GOP:

The whole reason Obama neither will nor can negotiate with John Boehner is that Boehner has the equivalent of the The Bomb. He’s threatening the destruction of the American financial system unless Obama implements policies that he favors. The government of Iran doesn’t have the power to make a similar threat, but the government of Russia does. Vladimir Putin could hold a press conference tomorrow and say that nuclear-armed ballistic missiles will destroy Houston, Chicago, and Indianapolis tomorrow unless Obama agrees to his list of demands.

Would it be reasonable for Obama to open a negotiation on those terms? Of course not! The content of the demands isn’t even relevant. The threat is too crazy to indulge.

Ezra weighs in:

If the Republicans just wanted negotiations, the Obama administration would be happy to oblige them.

The White House, after all, has repeatedly said they’re willing to negotiate with the Republicans over the deficit, over jobs, over sequestration, and much else. Republicans haven’t been interested in those kinds of negotiations for some time. Indeed, after the fiscal cliff, Speaker John Boehner told Republicans that he was finished negotiating directly with Obama.

The reason Republicans aren’t interested in those negotiations is they don’t want to give anything up to get the things they want. That’s why they like negotiating over the debt ceiling: Since they also don’t want the the U.S. to lose its creditworthiness and fall back into financial crisis, raising the debt ceiling is not actually giving anything up. It’s releasing a hostage they never wanted to shoot.

Norman Ornstein argues that there “is one area where Obama could and should be willing to negotiate with Republicans—to take the default option, the full faith and credit of the United States, off the table permanently”:

Institutionalizing the McConnell Rule [which allowed the president to unilaterally extend the debt limit in 2011] would be valuable enough that it should extract some real concessions from the president to achieve it. Of course, those concessions would not include any delays in the core parts of the Affordable Care Act. Mitt Romney himself made it clear what a one year delay in the individual mandate was all about, when he said to CNN on Friday, “I think there’s a better way of getting rid of Obamacare—my own view—and that is, one, delaying it by at least a year.” But there are compromises on Obamacare that make more sense. Ending the employer mandate in Obamacare, now only postponed for a year and never either an essential part of health reform nor a good idea, would be one chip to give up. Agreeing to some malpractice reform, if it aimed at reducing defensive medicine, might be another. I could even see throwing in the Keystone pipeline to get this kind of outcome.

Cowen thinks a smaller, attainable victory for the GOP would be good politics:

The GOP, from its budget strategies, might manage to repeal the medical devices tax.  Repealing a tax, and chipping away at ACA, is in this setting a major victory for them, especially given that right now they are not winning so many victories.  It doesn’t matter so much that the medical device tax repeal would be relatively small in its impact.  “We forced the repeal of one part of Obamacare” is a big symbolic victory.