“Hostage Taking 101”

Torture cheerleader Marc Thiessen gave a lesson on it earlier this week:

I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving. Obama and the Democrats don’t care about stopping a government shutdown. … By contrast, when it comes to the debt-limit showdown, they do have leverage; while Obama can let the government close and blame the GOP, he cannot allow the United States to default.

Galupo rightly calls Thiessen a thug. Chait worries that Republicans buy their own spin:

Conservative discourse on the debt ceiling is a chorus of cheering belligerence. I’ve seen no conservatives consider the possibility that Democrats actually believe their stated position, which is that giving in to debt-ceiling extortion would pave the way for endless future extortion and an eventual debt breach. They assert over and over that Democrats will fold, and seem to believe this.

Yglesias urges the president to hold firm:

[F]rom the standpoint of the country as a whole, a debt ceiling breach in 2013 is no more disastrous than a breach in 2017 or 2022. And the problem with “cutting a deal” with Republicans is that it essentially makes an eventual breach inevitable. If the hostage-taking gambit works, then it will be used over and over again until it goes wrong.

And Kilgore hopes Obama will pass a message on to Boehner:

Now I don’t know anything about the president’s relationship with Boehner. But it’s becoming a matter of national security for him to find some way to take him aside, maybe give the Speaker a cigarette from his secret stash, and say: “I will see you in Hell before I negotiate over the debt limit. And if you let a default happen, I will devote the rest of my presidency to making sure you, personally, bear the blame, and go down in history with our most despised traitors and criminals. For generations, little school children in Ohio will cross themselves and make hex signs when your name is mentioned. So do not, do not, go back and tell your crazy people they can win if they just stick together.”

Where’s Boehner’s Backbone?

Boehner, House Leaders Speak To Press After Republican Conference Meeting

A reader writes:

Why is there not more coverage of the Hastert Rule? The speaker chooses to be bound by this rule – which explicitly makes compromise unwelcome – when a full majority of the House would be happy to pass the clean CR and move on. Boehner could lift the Hastert Rule and move the CR to the floor, where Democrats and many members of his own party would pass it.  If he were challenged as Speaker, he could conceivably extract support from the Democrats – especially Democrats in safe districts – to support him against a Republican challenge as Speaker.  Surely the Democrats would rather have Boehner than someone to his right?  The Speaker is elected by the full House!

But Boehner lacks creativity and is trapped in a cage made from his own cowardice.

Another scenario from a reader:

What if John Boehner were a man of principle – well, let’s pretend – and when it came time to raise the debt ceiling and his very right-wing party members refused, he does the truly unexpected. Instead of giving up on the Hastert rule and having to have Democrats come to his rescue, fueling more right-wing scorn, what if he resigned?

That would allow the extreme right wing Tea Partiers to take the blame for the ramifications – whatever they might be – of not raising the debt ceiling. Who would they point their fingers at then?  I’m assuming, of course, that there would be considerable fallout to going over the cliff, but most every reasonable person I have read expects some kind of negative impact on the economy. This might lance the boil that has infected the Republican Party for too long.

If he is so afraid that he won’t be re-elected Speaker that he is giving into demands that he knows are wrong – not just bad politics, but plain wrong – it might be the only way he could regain any sense of being a man with a conscience.

From that Costa interview we linked to earlier:

EK: This may be a bit of an odd question, but why does Boehner want to do his job like this under these circumstances? From the outside, it seems like a miserable existence. 

RC: I think John Boehner is frustrated by leading the Republicans in the House but I think he very much loves being speaker. To understand him you have to understand that. He gets to the Capitol early. He relishes the job and the position but he doesn’t relish being at odds so often with his members. He loves being a major American political figure, but he’s not a Newt Gingrich-like figure trying to lead the party in a certain direction. He’s just trying to survive and enjoy it while it lasts.

(Photo from Getty)

When Will The Republican Fever Break?

Steinglass isn’t holding his breath:

There is no equivalent on the moderate-Republican side to the organisational muscle and rhetorical elan that propels the party’s tea-party wing. No one is lining up to back moderate primary challengers to tea-party candidates. Establishment figures from previous Republican administrations who have found themselves transformed into voices of caution and moderation, such as Mr Gerson, most of the writers at National Review Online, and even (mutatis mutandi) Karl Rove, appear to have little ability to affect the party’s course anymore.

Waldman’s view:

Their fever will never break. Never.

The only thing that will give it a temporary respite is if a Republican becomes president, at which time they’ll decide that crises aren’t such a great tool after all. Their nihilistic rage will be put away, behind a glass door with the words “Break in case of Democratic president” written on it. And then it will start all over again

Drum wonders how we arrived at this state of affairs:

There’s always been a faction of right-wing craziness in America. It’s part of our DNA. But how did it become so widespread? The usual answer involves the rise of conservative think tanks, conservative talk radio, Fox News, the Christian right, and racial resentment toward a black president. And maybe that’s it. Somehow, though, it doesn’t feel quite sufficient. But if it’s not, then what’s going on? What’s happened over the past decade or two to spin up so many Americans into a blind rage?

Complaining about tea party congressmen misses the big picture. The problem is the people who voted them into office. What happened to them?

Is The Shutdown Racist?

Mitt Romney Attends Tea Party Rally In New Hampshire

Joan Walsh nods:

On the day the Affordable Care Act takes effect, the U.S. government is shut down, and it may be permanently broken. You’ll read lots of explanations for the dysfunction, but the simple truth is this: It’s the culmination of 50 years of evolving yet consistent Republican strategy to depict government as the enemy, an oppressor that works primarily as the protector of and provider for African-Americans, to the detriment of everyone else. The fact that everything came apart under our first African-American president wasn’t an accident, it was probably inevitable.

I’d say it came apart during the impeachment of Bill Clinton, the first sign of madness when the Democrats first truly wielded power after the Southern Strategy bore fruit under Reagan. Remember that Clinton was from the beginning regarded as illegitimate because he didn’t get more than 43 percent of the vote. Let us recall Bob Dole’s words after Clinton’s 1992 clear electoral college victory:

There isn’t any Clinton mandate. Fifty-seven percent didn’t vote for him. I’ll represent the 57 percent.

Or Tommy Thompson with an equally surreal view of the Constitution:

Only 43 percent of the people voted for Bill Clinton — that is not much of a mandate. . . . Republicans won nine legislative houses across the country. . . . Republicans have just as much of a mandate as the Democrats.

When you compare this with the Republican view of the 2000 election when George W Bush lost the popular vote and, undeterred by any sense of restraint, doubled down on massive unfunded tax cuts and pre-emptive wars along with budget-busting new entitlements, you get a better sense of who feels entitled to rule in this country, and who is routinely regarded as “illegitimate.”

Now, of course, this merely suggests that it is simply being Democrats that render the last two Democratic presidents inherently illegitimate – since only one was African-American. But remember how Clinton was regarded as “the first black president” by many, including those on the left? Remember his early days fighting for civil rights in Arkansas? You think a white Southerner overturning the success of the Southern Strategy would be deemed acceptable to the Southern right which increasingly dominated the GOP?

Nonetheless, Charles C. W. Cooke rightly notes:

Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George H. W. Bush, all of whom presided over fractious shutdowns, might find this insinuation rather perplexing. In the last 40 years, only President George W. Bush was spared such a conflict.

The one president whose legitimacy was actually in some actual doubt escaped the revolt entirely. Hmmm. Quod erat demonstrandum.

More to the point, the other shutdowns were not about demanding the repeal of an already-enacted, constitutionally-approved signature achievement of a re-elected president – only a few years after a massive financial crisis and during a global recession. They were bargaining positions in which both sides had something to offer and a compromise to reach. All the GOP has to offer this time is … shutting down the government. This is not negotiation; it’s blackmail. And blackmail after all the proper avenues for stopping, amending, delaying and reforming the health bill have been exhausted. I mean they repealed the bill 41 times already – proof positive that all constitutional means for opposition have been exhausted. That‘s what makes this different. It’s not about playing hard by the rules. It’s losing and throwing the board-game in the air and threatening the destruction of the US and global economy in consequence. It’s unbelievable.

But when I mention race, I should unpack my point. It’s not a simple one, and I do not mean to be glib or too casual in throwing that word around.

I’m talking about the difference between opposition to a president’s agenda and a belief that he is somehow an impostor, illegitimate, and a usurper for reasons that seem, in the end, to come down to racial and cultural panic.

Do I have to recount the endless accusations against Obama of such?  No president has been subjected to endless litigation of his birth certificate or his religious faith (as if the latter mattered anyway). No president has been heckled in a State of the Union address with the words “You lie!” as Obama was. There was no claim that George W Bush was illegitimate because he muscled through a huge Medicare expansion as he was destroying this country’s fiscal standing having lost the popular vote to Al Gore. The Democrats didn’t threaten to shut the government down to stop anything he did. And no Republican, facing a major economic crisis, has received zero votes from the opposition in his first year. Both Bushes and Reagan won considerable Democratic support for tax cuts and tax hikes in their early years. The opposition accepted the legitimacy of the election. That’s the difference.

But Clinton was nonetheless regarded as illegitimate despite being what in any other era would be called a moderate Republican. Ditto Obama, whose stimulus and healthcare law were well within conservative policy consensus only a decade ago. I supported both presidents as a moderate small-c conservative (until Clinton revealed himself as sadly lacking the character not to self-implode). So I have long been puzzled not by legitimate opposition to various policies but by the frenzy of it. Call it the education of an English conservative in the long tortured history of American pseudo-conservatism.

In the end, I could only explain the foam-flecked frenzy of opposition to Clinton and Obama by the sense that the Civil Rights Revolution of the 1960s was the defining event for a certain generation, that the backlash to it was seen as a restoration of the right people running the country (i.e. no minorities with real clout), and that Clinton’s and even more Obama’s victories meant this narrative was revealed as an illusion. This is compounded by racial and cultural panic – against gays, immigrants, Muslims, Latinos etc – and cemented by a moronic, literalist, utterly politicized version of Christianity. This mindset – what I have called the “fundamentalist psyche” – is what is fueling the rage. It’s what fueled the belief that Romney was on the verge of a landslide. It is inherently irrational. It knows somewhere deep down that it is headed for defeat. But it will take down as much of the country, economy and constitution as it can while doing so.

For this time, as they surely know, Reconstruction will not be on their terms. They have no agenda because the multi-racial, multi-cultural, moderate-right country they live in is a refutation of their core identity. So race and culture fuel this – perhaps not explicitly or even consciously for some, but surely powerfully for many. And we are reaching a perilous moment as their cultural marginalization intensifies and their political defeat nears. After that, the rage could become truly destabilizing, unless some kind of establishment Republican leadership can learn to lead again. America and the world need to batten down the hatches.

(Photo: A homemade bumper sticker is seen on the back of a car during a Tea Party rally on September 4, 2011 in Concord, New Hampshire. By Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

How Painful Should The Shutdown Be?

A reader writes:

I saw some faux rage on HuffPo about the fact that Fox News call the shutdown a slimdown. Now, while the motives of Fox News are known, they are not incorrect. Yes, 800,000 people have been sent home. But 1.3 million are still at work. And on top of that, the count of active military is about 1.5 million. So, only about a fifth of all government employees have been sent home. That is not a shutdown, even if the effects will be very annoying, especially over time.

The problem is that, once again, the government has exempted itself largely from feeling the effects from shutting down.

Congress gets paid. The judiciary power, including the Supreme Court, is largely open. I understand we can’t close down national defense, but why do we need 1.3 million people on active duty? Congress did pass a quick law to keep them paid. With the government down, can’t that shrink down to much, much less – basically only base protection?

And then the government has made weird choices on what is “essential'” Apparently, the FAA and TSA are essential. But curing cancer patients is not. So, members of Congress can fly home, while they do not have to turn patients away from the NIH. All national parks are closed, they say. But not the “highway” parks in DC such as the BW Parkway and the GW Parkway, even though the park parts of those parks are closed. Nor is the White House, which is technically a National Park, closed. DC gets to declare itself essential. You can even wonder why combat troops are essential. In the old days, wars were lost because there was no pay.

Now, it is understandable that honorable civil servants want to minimize the damage by the shutdown. But on the other hand, isn’t it the point of a shutdown to cause hurt? And isn’t the damage supposed to put pressure on Congress to get its act together? So shouldn’t the pain be pointed at Congress the most?

But “essential” employees, even though they must go to work, aren’t paid until the shutdown ends. Yglesias points out that this can’t last forever:

Walking around today you might notice that despite the shutdown hype, life is basically going on as normal. That’s because all those essential workers are still on the job. But they’re not getting paid. If you’re not essential, you aren’t allowed to work even if you’re willing to work without pay. If you are essential, you have to work even though you won’t be paid.

… These are patriotic people who will keep doing their jobs, but they obviously can’t work for free forever. Realistically, as a shutdown drags on there will be political pressure to appropriate funds to pay certain people. The president already signed an ad hoc bill that assures soldiers will get paid. Given a long enough shutdown, FBI agents and the people feeding the animals at the National Zoo might also get special bills for them. In practice, though, a fall 2013 government shutdown has a rather short potential lifespan. That’s because even with the government shut down we’re still going to breach the statutory debt ceiling around Oct. 17-20 at which point the lack of discretionary appropriations will be subsumed by a larger and more cataclysmic issue.

There’s A Big Congressional Majority To Fund The Government

Fallows highlights that fact:

The Democratic administration, and a sufficient number of Republicans, already agree and are ready enough to compromise to solve this problem. If the normal machinery of democracy were allowed to work, the manufactured crisis would be over. The only reason the senseless damage is being done is that hostage-takers have terrorized members of their own party.

Robert Costa reveals Boehner’s thinking:

Boehner is aware that, on paper, potentially more than 100 House Republicans would be open to a clean CR should he bring one to the floor. But the internal chaos such a move could cause could be devastating, and with a major debt-limit battle approaching, he won’t let a CR vote divide his conference.

Bernstein wonders whether defections will force the Speaker’s hand:

Surely if 60 Republicans were to say they wanted to vote for a clean CR, Boehner’s position would be untenable, wouldn’t it? My guess is the line would be some number greater than 25 and fewer than 60.

But again, in what universe are we even talking about this? There’s a majority in the House and the Senate to keep the government open and running, and yet the Speaker will not allow a free vote on it. This is not about the governance of the United States. It is about the crazed shenanigans of something that looks like a religious sect. This is a party not only unfit for government, but also for opposition.

Congress Is Ruining Countless Vacations

Government Shutdown Forces Closures In Nation's  Capitol

Daniel Gross looks at how the shutdown will hurt the travel industry:

[T]he U.S. Travel Organization put out an annual report that estimates the impact of travel generally in the U.S. The report suggests 14.4 million total jobs are supported by travel, or one in every eight in the private sector.  For 2013, it forecasts travel spending will be $889.1 billion, up 3.9 percent from $855.4 billion in 2012. New York City alone in 2011 welcomed (or didn’t welcome, as the case may be) 50.9 million tourists.

Of course, most tourists traveling in the U.S. visit sites run by the private sector—like Disney World, or Las Vegas. But federally-run sites are also among the largest attractions.

Mount Rushmore gets three million visitors per year. That’s nearly four times the population of South Dakota. Without government entities, the 17.9 million tourists who visited Washington, D.C. in 2011 would have had little reason to go. An estimated 275 million people visit national parks each year. And without other government operations—the State Department, which processes and grants visas, the airports, customs officials—people wouldn’t be able to enter, exit, and move about the country.

Noam Scheiber watched Fox News’s shutdown coverage yesterday:

[E]very half hour brought another report from a correspondent in the field surveying the landscape of shuddered facilities. The Statue of Liberty. Bunker Hill. My favorite was a group a World War II veterans who’d trekked to Washington to tour the World War II memorial, only to find it barricaded when they got there. Fox played the footage over and over, clearly sensing a prime Kulturkampf opportunity—aging war veterans made to suffer indignities by socialist president. But none of the Foxies narrating the story could quite figure out what to do with the fact that it takes government money to build memorials, and government money to keep them open. And so it just hung out there as an implicit rebuke of Republicans.

(Photo: World War II veteran Russell Tucker of Meridian, Mississippi, stands outside the barricade as he visits the World War II Memorial during a government shutdown on October 1, 2013. The memorial was temporary opened to veteran groups arrived on Honor Flights on a day trip to visit the nation’s capital. By Alex Wong/Getty Images)

One Step Closer To The Bionic Leg

In a breakthrough for prosthetics, a Chicago team has developed a robotic leg that is wired directly to the patient’s brain, allowing him to control the mechanism with his thoughts alone:

To accomplish this, surgeons redirected the nerves that previously controlled some of the man’s lower-leg muscles so that they would cause muscles in his thigh to contract in a technique called targeted muscle reinnervation. They then used sensors embedded in the robotic leg to measure the electrical pulses created by both the reinnervated muscle contractions and the existing thigh muscles. When the surgeons combined this information with additional data from the sensors, the man was able to use the leg more accurately than when attempting to control the leg with its sensors alone, the scientists report. They hope that other people with missing limbs will be able to use the technology within the next three to five years.

Derek Mead looks ahead to the next likely innovation:

Integrating a prosthetic directly into a patient’s nervous system would seem to be the answer. Rather than learning how to use one’s robo hand, it could be controlled just as directly as your flesh-and-bone models. The concept has been proven before; research earlier this year showed that a paralyzed person could control robot limbs with her thoughts, but actually deploying it in a prosthetic—especially one as challenging as a lower leg—is even harder. So far, the proof of concept appears to be working (walking?) well, and [lead researcher Levi] Hargrove’s team hopes to have it ready for broader use within a few years.

Update from a reader:

I’m a biomedical engineer who does this type of work every day. I don’t mean to throw cold water on the RIC prosthetic, but targeted reinnervation has been a tested and proven method for controlling prosthetics for almost a decade now. That’s not to say doing it in the leg isn’t an amazing piece of biomedical engineering, and I applaud everything Dr. Kuiken has done, from Jesse’s Arm to this leg work.

But the second problem with this bit of media over-hype is to say the prosthetic is “wired directly” to the brain. That is not the case. It is connected to already existing nerves in the leg (or for arm prosthetics, they connect it to arm nerves they surgically relocate to the pectoral muscle). To say that his prosthetic is “wired directly” to the brain would be like saying my smartphone is directly connected to dish.andrewsullivan.com, without mentioning that the Internet is involved. Directly interpreting brain neural output and using that to accurately control prosthetics is still far, far in the future.

Trapped By Trash

If we don’t clean up our space junk, we might be cut off from the rest of the universe:

NASA claims that more than 500,000 pieces of debris, ranging from the size of a marble to eight tons, are in orbit. These scattered fragments travel at speeds up to 17,500 miles per hour. In the forthcoming movie Gravity, a piece of satellite debris destroys a shuttle, but even much smaller objects such as chips of paint could damage a satellite, space station, or a spacecraft carrying astronauts. A 2009 study performed by all the major space agencies – including ESA, NASA, and Roscosmos – revealed that even if no further space launches occur, the amount of orbital debris will continue to increase. More than simply littering Earth’s low orbits, we would be hindering our ability to safely travel beyond it.

The European Space Agency’s Clean Space Initiative is working on a solution, but it won’t be an quick or easy:

The only way to preserve key orbits is to remove the debris, like picking up scraps of refuse blowing down a highway. … “It’s an extremely challenging mission,” says Luisa Innocenti, the head of the Clean Space Office. “Getting close to the debris is dangerous because you need to maneuver around the uncontrolled object.” This means developing a guidance and navigation control system where chasers stay close to the targeted debris. A capturing mechanism – a big net, a harpoon, a robotic arm, or a giant tentacle that, amid the stars, would clamp down on the object – would collect the debris and return it to Earth. The goal is to have a mission in 2022.

A Letter From Afghanistan

A reader writes:

I’ve been reading your blog since the fall of 2002, and today I thought I’d share my perspective on the shutdown. I work as a senior advisor at one of the military commands in Afghanistan.  I don’t work for DoD; I work for one of the foreign affairs agencies.  I’ve been in one of the more dangerous places in Afghanistan for about 15 months now.  We get shelled frequently by the Taliban.  I’ve loaded flag-draped caskets containing the bodies of co-workers onto cargo planes.  I have a wife and some beautiful children that I don’t get to see very much on account of my work.

Unlike my military colleagues, my agency has not been exempted from the shutdown.  I’m deemed essential personnel by virtue of my service in Afghanistan, meaning I’m basically required to go to work, but I’m working for an IOU.  In addition, the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that I won’t be able to take leave and see my family any time soon.

I think you’ve covered the utter betrayal of our government by Republican congressmen pretty well.  But I think you raise an important point when you say that anyone who sees this as some kind of good faith compromise between two sides is complicit in this shocking turn of events. What gets me as much as the cynical Republican strategy is my supposed friends who enable it. I’ve gotten into more than a few debates with friends who support this – and also go out of their way to thank me for my service.

What I’ve taken to doing is explaining to them the practical effects of the actions they support and then asking them if they’d like to fly out here and join me in volunteering, pro bono, for their country.  Suddenly their tone of certainty changes and it’s equivocation time.  It’s a complete act of cowardice by people who, by and large, have never done anything for their country.

Is it any surprise that people feel this way?  Generations of American politicians have made it into office by tearing down the very government they want to join.  When I joined the government over a decade ago, I was amazed at how many competent, dedicated professionals I came across, many of who could have taken much more lucrative jobs in the private sector (and many of whom left such jobs to join the government).  These are people who believe in America and believe in service.

But the joke’s on us, because decades of spiteful rhetoric has conditioned Americans to view us as a blight on the landscape, a detractor from (rather than contributor to) this country.  And now, with this, I have to say, I feel completely and utterly betrayed by the people elected to represent me.  I’ve never had a more disheartening moment in my decade-plus long career in the service of my country, and that includes the time I was living overseas when Abu Ghraib blew up. It’s sickening.