Heartache With Hard Work

Luck Of The Irish (Live) – John Lennon (from the Anthology set which, BTW is totally awesome and an essential purchase for any serious Lennon fan)

Perhaps this will be the thing to finally convince people that the lack of video replay in the game is a relic of past ages and a massive dis-service to the players who invest years of their lives in the game, and the supporters who live and die with their national team.

Sure, France had a legitimate shout for a penalty a few minutes earlier. And of course we don’t know that Ireland would have won in the penalty shootout. But we ought to have been given the chance to find out, don’t you think?

I’m a luddite on a lot of things. I get the general aesthetic rejection of video replay. But c’mon. There are ways to incorporate technology in limited ways to improve the quality of the game. When everyone in the world knows that it’s a handball except for the four referees, it’s a travesty and a mockery of the idea that we’re watching a fair and legitimate game.

A lot of people have been calling for Henry’s head. I can understand the sentiment but don’t agree. It’s not his fault the system is so broken. And while it would have been a monumentally impressive act of sportsmanship for him to own up, there’s not actually all that much he could have done. Reports conflict about whether he told the ref he handled the ball – I suppose he could have jumped up and down about it – but if the ref is insistent that it’s a valid goal, there is literally no one who can fix things. You can’t even decide as France to give Ireland a free goal. Thanks to the away goals rule, as soon as France put a 1 on the board penalties were off the table.

For me, this is a situation where the system is broken. And it doesn’t do any good to complain about individual failures when it all happens in the backdrop of a structure that doesn’t work. The focus should be on actually fixing the real problem, not searching for villains.

Sort of like how I feel about the Senate.

If “taxpayers should not have to pay for a procedure they believe is tantamount to murder” then why have we spent $700 billion dollars fighting a war in Iraq?

The liberal blags have been taking potshots Robert Kaplan for this recent remark:

But America is much too alone in taking on this work. Europe, having been liberated from nuclear terror at the conclusion of the Cold War, proved unable to muster the gumption to deal with Yugoslavia on its own, or, as the case of Afghanistan shows, to demonstrate much enthusiasm for any great collective effort. Which leads to the question: What does the European Union truly stand for besides a cradle-to-grave social welfare system? For without something to struggle for, there can be no civil society—only decadence.
Thus, with their patriotism dissipated, European governments can no longer ask for sacrifices from their populations when it comes to questions of peace and war. Ironically, we may have gained victory in the Cold War, but lost Europe in the process.

Now, I think Kaplan is wrong here. He’s wrong on the substance and he’s wrong on the subtext (“stupid, lazy, good-for-nothing Europeans with their baguettes and stinky cheese and universal health care”). That said, I don’t think it’s as risible a remark as everyone else.

Maybe it’s just because I’ve been reading a lot of Schmitt lately, but I really do think there’s something to the idea of conflict as a necessary driving force in meaningful life. He would certainly have found a more elegant and incisive way of saying it, but I’d have to imagine that if he were still around he’d make much the same point as Kaplan. The neutralization of politics that has gone into the development of a liberal European polity has some troubling byproducts.

It’s not about losing ‘civil society’ though – in fact it’s precisely the opposite. A life lived without the sense of politics as conflict is a life lived entirely IN civil society, in the depolicitized world of vocation and idle play. The problem of modern liberalism is the ease with which we simply take for granted the laundering of our basic struggles through the lens of boring insitutions and (relatively) meaningless choices.

Of course, as I said, I don’t AGREE with Kaplan’s argument. For one thing, I think there’s a strong case that European democracy (in particular) has a lot more of the flavor of conflict in it than this sort of critique assumes. My academic work right now is on precisely this question of whether liberalism is really a project of minimizing the scope of the political, and I come down pretty strongly on the side of it as a far more vital enterprise than is traditionally credited. Along those lines, I think it’s a rather gross overstatement to imply that the only way to inculcate a meaningful sense of struggle and conflict in a polity is to imagine existential threats where none exist.

If anything, the war-mongerers, the unrepenetant Cold Warriors in search of another Great Enemy, they are the ones far more susceptible to a Schmittian critique. They presuppose precisely the liberal milieu that they criticize – indeed the premise that our enemies seek to not just threaten us but also to threaten freedom as such is precisely the mechanism by which they transform war from a necessity into a crusade. It’s the false sense that you have identified the ‘just war’ which truly imperils the world.

So I agree with folks like Yglesias when they point out that the neo-cons are a problem. But I disagree with the implication that there is nothing to the argument in favor of politics as necessarily conflictual. We don’t have to believe everything Schmitt says, but I think it’s a mistake to not at least take him seriously. If we don’t, we run the risk of advocating for a milquetoast and anodyne sense of politics that helps put folks like Wolfowitz and Cheney and Bush into positions of power and arms them with a sense of legitimacy.

Struggle matters, but it should be genuine struggle over politics. There’s plenty of space for that within a liberal political structure but it’s not something we can just take for granted.

Take It Serious – Mika Miko (who broke up a few weeks ago. Drag)

So health care passed the House. On one hand, this is an absolutely historic occasion. Health care reform has never (literally never) gotten this far along the path toward enactment. And while the House obviously functions with a lot less roadblocks (see my complaints about out Madisonian veto-ridden system elsewhere), it’s still not exactly a cakewalk.

My thoughts:

First, I completely agree with the litany of folks who have argued that the final margin (220-215) makes it look a lot closer than it might actually be. Pelosi is pretty good at this sort of thing and presumably was not going to force the folks in the middle to come down on the ‘yea’ side and be forced to support the more ‘liberal’ bill. I’d wager that a fair number of the Democrats who fell on the other side of this vote will end up voting yes on the more watered down bill that comes out of conference when it all comes down. They may not want to get tarred with x, y, or z provision if it’s just going to get stripped out later but I think they also may want to be on the right side of history.

Second, now we get to see what the world’s greatest deliberative body can do with this. The idea that the fate of literally millions of people rests in the gnarly hands of people like Lieberman and Ben Nelson is pretty depressing. But what are you going to do, eh?

Third, the Stupak amendment. This is one of the more infuriating elements of the whole health care process so far. Bear in mind that the bill was ALREADY loaded up with a ‘compromise’ position on abortion which mirrors the Medicaid one. Which means that even if it had passed without this amendment, it would have been pretty crappy as far as reproductive rights go. Now, the version with this amendment will not merely fail to expand coverage it will actually DECREASE it by preventing any private insurance firms who offer coverage to those who are subsidized from covering abortion. It’s just horrible.

Of course, as is always the case with abortion, it’s important to remember that the single biggest driver of public policy on this subject is the idea that POOR people don’t deserve reproductive rights. It’s the invetiable ‘compromise’ position between one side trying to ban abortion and another side who wants rich white folks to have safe and easy access but doesn’t care much about anyone else. As Ezra Klein points out, even while this amendment reduces abortion access for those who are relatively poor and need subsidies, it does absolutely nothing to the massive subsidy for employer-provided coverage:

That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage. It would, after all, have been the same principle: Federal policy should not subsidize insurance that offers abortion coverage. But it would have failed in an instant. That group is too large, and too affluent, and too politically powerful for Congress to dare to touch their access to reproductive services.

I know I spend a lot of time cautioning people against drawing lines in the sand. Even if no public option is included, I say, it’s still a very good bill overall and worth supporting. And I still think that’s true in this case.

But it makes me feel oily to even think about it. I didn’t expect health care to also take on the utter injustice of the Hyde Amendment – that’s a battle for another day – but the idea that it’s going to accentuate the imbalance in reproductive health coverage is really offensive.

There’s a part of me that thinks some enterprising Senator on the left should actually propose an amendment to do precisely what Klein says above: remove the tax exxemption for employer-provided coverage that pays for abortions. Just to see how people will vote.

As for William Saletan: surprise, surprise, he’s saying that Democrats need to be willing to sell out reproductive rights:

There’s something poignant about the last-minute outrage of the pro-choice groups. The complaints they’re leveling—that people had more choices in the private market, that the House bill radically upsets this market, and that it violates Obama’s promise not to deprive anyone of their existing coverage—are hardly novel. Republicans have issued such warnings all year. But liberals didn’t pay attention until the coverage in jeopardy was abortion.

There’s an intuitive appeal to that argument. But it fades when you ask yourself what precisely this bill was going to force on people that is remotely equivalent to being forced by the state to carry a fetus inside their body for nine months, suffering the accompanying health complications, and then having to pass the baby out of their uterus. Oh, and costing their insurance company a LOT more than it would have cost to have an abortion in the process.

Apart from that, the situations are pretty similar I guess.

With Rainer Maria not around any more, and with Caithlin De Marrais making much less hysterical records these days, there’s a little bit of a hole in my life. Don’t get me wrong, I prefer the older, wiser Caithlin. Still, every now and then you just want a track where it sounds like the singer is teetering on the brink of total collapse.

Signs – LoveLikeFire

This track, from San Francisco’s LoveLikeFire is precisely such a song. It rages against the dying of the light, screams, hectors, crackles and bursts like pine needles tossed into a roaring fire. It’s a call to war, to collapse, to chaos.

The album is called Tear Ourselves Away, and I have yet to hear the whole thing, but have just been digging this track too much today to wait for posting.

It’s also worth mentioning that they’ve got a fun cover of one of my favorite Magnetic Fields songs “Abigail, Belle of Kilronan” available here.

1. “The problem with gay marriage is unelected courts trying to impose their will on the people. Our problem isn’t with the content of the decision, it’s with the process by which it was made.”

The bigots won their vote in Maine, so can we lay this one to rest for good now? The reason people have a problem with gay marriage is that they have a problem with gay people. That’s all there is to it.

2. “The results on Tuesday mean that x is true for 2010.“

The results, at most, might suggest some general things for future elections. They don’t mean that the public repudiated Obama or his agenda. They don’t mean that the conservatives have officially destroyed the Republican Party. Corzine has been at negative favorability for something like two years. People like that tend to lose elections. Hoffman lost in part because he was a terrible candidate and there’s every chance that he (or an actual Republican) will win the race 12 months from now. And so on. It was like 10 elections total. It’s nothing.

The underlying trends which helped drive these few elections in some interesting directions may hold firm for a while longer. So NY-23 may be a sign of coming fights. But that has basically nothing to do with the results of the election.

If the economy is still crappy in 9 months the Democrats are going to lose a lot of seats. If it’s not, maybe they won’t. If they can’t pass a health care bill, they’re going to get slaughtered. If they do pass a health care bill, maybe they won’t. That’s about it.

3. “When the economy’s not strong there’s a lot of interest in controlling spending.”

Ben Nelson has really gotten on my nerves this year.

4. Anything about the Yankees that’s not this post from Joe Posnanski.

Seriously, I hate the Yankees.

5. The new Amy Millan album

How did someone involved in “Elevator Love Letter” make something so bland? Sigh.

Not So Fast – The Lodger

The Financial Times reports:

Republicans complain they are being forced into an artificial timetable that is reducing the chances of agreement. People on both sides of the committee, chaired by Chris Dodd, the Democratic senator, say the chances of the law being passed by the year-end, as planned by the administration, are slight.
“The more time we [take], the more intelligent regulatory process we’ll have . . . and I hope we’ll take until the first quarter of 2010 to actually put something into law,” said Mr Corker.

Tim Fernholz responds:

What in the world does he want to talk about? It’s not like Corker is pushing some specific agenda or has offered any major ideas, at least publicly. These issues have been at the forefront of the policy debate for a year now, and certainly have been bubbling underneath for a long time. If he doesn’t have any specific concerns, its hard to conceive of this as anything but a delaying tactic that simply substitutes vague delays for substantive engagement.

The ‘too fast’ complaint is a constant annoyance for me. The important thing you have to remember is that “too fast” is almost without fail simply code for “I don’t want this to happen.” There was an argument that something like TARP or the PATRIOT act were done too quickly and with not enough oversight. Those were bills where the perception (fair or not) of imminent threats got people mobilized to act quickly.

But 99% of the time, the one complaint you CAN’T leverage against Congress is that it moves too slowly. It’s an institution designed for a world where communication took place by horse or sailboat transposed into a time of cell phones and twitter and the blagosphere.

Take health care. After 2+ years of presidential campaigns where it was one of the two or three central issues. After almost a full year since a president and huge Democratic majority were elected on the back of a mandate to fix it. After 40 years since the last major reform to health care. After all that, you’ve still got GOP senators complaining about how fast this is all moving. If only there had been just a little bit longer to talk, then maybe something could have been worked out.

Of course, this is not helped at all by a media that absolutely adores the ‘too fast’ meme. It allows you to run a process story that SOUNDS like it contains meaningful content but does not actually require any digging. ‘Too fast’ itself serves as the complaint – no one ever demands that you articulate what precisely it is that ought to have been included. In general, there appears to be extremely little interest in questioning the motives of those making such complaints. And it’s understandable why. To identify this possibility would be tantamount to accusing them of making claims in bad faith, which is dangerously close to the l-word which must never be spoken.

I’ve talked before about the tension between my belief that there is value in discourse and the material reality of ‘discourse’ as performed in modern politics. So I don’t want to say that we should toss the ideal overboard, but at least in the case of this ‘too fast’ meme I do wish there was an expectation that those advancing it actually be prepared to discuss the content rather than form of their argument. To borrow a metaphor, we should trust but verify. Starting from the assumption that your opponent is speaking bad faith is a poor way to engage in public reason. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they actually uphold a good faith argument rather than mouthing platitudes.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum says basically exactly the same thing as me, literally while I was writing this. Though he also notes that Afghanistan is the one area where taking time to consider options is absolutely unforgivable: “Then it’s “dithering” and “playing Hamlet.”

UPDATE 2: Ezra Klein, too. Is there a run on making this point today??

One more thought on the NY-23 election. Or rather, the same thought on NY-23 but coming at it from a slightly different angle.

I think Jon Chait makes a fair point:

Rich paints Scozzafava’s heresies as minor. But suppose this was a solidly Democratic district, and party bosses put forward an anti-stimulus, anti-abortion, anti-gay rights nominee. Would Rich really oppose a liberal campaign to elect a more like-minded representative? Would he employ such virtiolic metaphors? There’s a lesson here about making a moral cause out of a procedural argument you’re not prepared to back in opposite circumstances.

I do think it’s a little weird that the people chortling to themselves about the insanity of the conservatives shooting themselves in the foot on this are a lot of the same folks who are all in favor of pursuing primaries to bump out moderate Democrats. In particular, they’re the folks who are right now (correctly, of course) pointing out how much better things would be if Ned Lamont was sitting in the CT-Sen seat.

Now, I agree with them on the content. I’d rather have a Congress full of Lamonts than Hoffmans. But accusing conservatives of being naive and stupid politically for attempting to push aside people who don’t actually embody the core values of their side doesn’t gel very well with holding a variation on the same attitude toward moderates on your own side.

I think the really powerful innovation in Democratic campaigning that distinguishes the Clinton years from the Obama ones is the way that folks like Howard Dean managed to put together a new coalition. One where folks in ‘safe’ Democratic seats are expected to act like it, while those in more marginal ones are given a bit more freedom.

Yes, it does cause endless frustration with your Nelsons and Bayhs and Landrieus. But the problems are, I think, much more about the institutional structure than they are about the failure of this particular political strategy. There simply is no way that we’re going to end up with 60 strong progressives votes in the Senate. It’s fantasy to expect it. Given the electoral and procedural constraints of the Senate, you have to be willing to make deals somewhere along the way.

You absolutely do need folks on the wings attempting to pull the party outward, but you also need a strong concern for the center as a mechanism for generating some sense of balance. The problem for the Republicans right now is that things fell apart – the center couldn’t hold and now they’re a rump party: run almost entirely out of the CAPS-lock wing.

That’s why the scary thought is the possibility that such a rump party might actually manage to return to a significant degree of power without any of the restraining elements. It’s a lot harder to do things that way, but oh the havoc you can wreak if it does work out.