On Harry Reid and the "Negro Dialect"

I wanted to chime in on this, since the initial insanity appears to be over and we're done with that whole resignation clamor.

Let me start by saying I think the Republicans played it well. The only one of them who could realistically go over the top and call for Reid's resignation, Michael Steele, did so, so they got that point for free, and painted a picture (which the media ran with) of Democrats in utter turmoil, which was very well played, considering this was an essentially complimentary comment about someone's rival, made two years ago.

All of that is fine, and good show by the GOP. Now let's discuss the comment itself.

The first part of it, that Barack Obama was an excellent candidate because he was "light-skinned," I can't see as even controversial. Does anyone doubt that it would be harder for Obama to win if he had the skin tone of even, for example, Sidney Poitier? Since I know you're trying to conjure it up, here's a side-by-side:

Sidney is slightly darker, as you can see, likely because both of his parents were Caribbean, while Obama's mother is famously Kansan. And the fact that Obama is, as Joe Klein once said of his protagonist "not so dark," almost certainly made him more palatable to some voters. How much more palatable? Who the heck knows? I doubt very much that there is a direct melanin-to-soccer mom vote correllation to be established. This is not Haiti, where shifting political tides can launch a person into the upper class or doom them to serfdom based solely on skin tone of the ruling group. But it probably is harder for a darker black politician (or anyone) in America than it is for a lighter one.

The trick here is that Obama's post-racial identity has a lot more to do with narrative with a specific shade of skin tone. And I don't honestly think that it would have affected a politician of Obama's caliber much, had he maintained all of the things that made him an attractive personal candidate (biracial, immigrant narrative, rhetoric, pragmatism, forward-looking, etc.) but happened to be darker. Think of it this way: Would Morgan Freeman have problems if he ran? No, because he's got gravitas, and his African-American heritage is obviously a big part of his story. Would Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson (at right) have problems if he ran? Well, it'd be a fun race to watch, maybe, but probably a tough sell to suburbanites (who, it turns out, still get to vote). And while being darker than Obama wouldn't help that sell, the bigger issue would be an entire oeuvre of songs about being shot. Also, and this is just me talking, I think the name "Curtis" would not help.

Still, Harry Reid is from Nevada, a swing state. He was born in 1939, which makes him a senior citizen. His thought that it is an asset for a black community organizer politician to have light skin is no more interesting than an observation that it might help that same politician to be from the Midwest than from California.

The second part of Reid's comment is what is troublesome.

First, I'll give him a pass on use of the term "negro." While not exactly modern, it's not a pejorative or anything. Again, the man was born in the Great Depression; at the risk of demonstrating Daniel Moynihan's "soft bigotry of low expectations," I can forgive the man for using out-of-date terminology.

My question is what the heck he meant by a "negro dialect." I mean, it's hard to think of what that could even mean without coming up with a pretty ugly answer. I don't think he meant Ebonics, which is usually considered a language and not exactly widely spoken. So what did he mean? The problem is, I can't even figure out what a racist answer would be.

Black people, like all people, do speak in dialects, usually based on where they live. Stereotypically (and, to some extent, demographically), that tends to be thought of as large cities and the Southeastern states. Let's even give Reid the stereotype for a moment. Was he surprised that Obama - who had recently lived in the rough-and-tumble world of Cambridge, Massachusetts - did not speak in urban slang (let alone carry an accent from Pittsburgh or Baltimore)? Has Harry Reid met lots of politicians who speak like they're artists on the aforementioned Mr. Jackson's label? Or was he really surprised that Obama - one-time denizen of Indonesia, Hawaii, Kansas and California - lacked a strong Southern accent? On what were his expectations based?

The most charitable answer I can come up with is that he meant a Southern dialect. Since much of the major mainstream black political leadership of the last 40 years have come from the tree of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, many of them have roots in the Southern religious community (think Jesse Jackson). Certainly this is the case over the last several decades in the House of Representatives, where the plurality of black members are from the South. The problem with this theory is that, of the four black US Senators in the modern era, three came from Chicago (Obama, Roland Burris, and Carol Moseley Braun), and the other was from Massachusetts. Since he was a Senator for most of his national career, Reid knew all of them, and it seems unlikely that he would base his preconceptions on the House.

There is a Boston Legal episode about this, where Shatner tells an associate that he doesn't sound "black," and is promptly sued. In that episode, he later asks if it's really so bad to say someone sounds "black." James Spader responds that he thinks it's worse to say "urban" when you mean "black." And I generally agree with that assessment. But that show was based in Boston; it was pretty clear what Shatner meant. In this case, I honestly have no idea what Reid was even talking about.

I don't think Harry Reid's a racist, and anyone who says he is lacks respect for the full meaning of that word and all it has done throughout history. As Obama himself said, the man has decades of fighting for social justice, and it's not like Nevada is without diversity. But I do think he has to ask himself some tough questions about what, exactly, he thinks black people usually sound like, and if someone with those expectations is the best choice to lead his party in the Senate. Maybe, as he says, he just said something dumb that meant nothing. Or maybe he has more learning to do than he thinks.

One thing I do think is crap is the idea that Obama is somehow a hypocrite for forgiving Reid. Say what you will about him, Obama has never once played anything like the race card in the ruleless game that is politics. He has always resisted any opportunity to paint an opponent's comment as racist, and this is part of what has made him attractive to many. His quick acceptance of Reid's apology and shrugging off of the comment fits pretty well with everything he said and did in the primary (Bill Clinton's comments after South Carolina), and the general ("that one"), when he steadfastly refused to engage in calls of racism.

Okay, three links:

• The Inky did a massive profile on Specter, for those of you looking to brush up on his history.
• Labor appears to be sitting out the Democratic primary for governor.
• The NYT did a pretty cool - if flawed - op-ed graphic on the last decade.
  

The PA Races At This Point

Figures. The first post of the new year, and the first one in a month, and it's on the same day that basically everything in it changed. As I was typing on Tuesday, all sorts of people started resigning and retiring and screwing up the entire national picture.

It mostly changed in two states - Connecticut and Colorado. In Colorado, Governor Bill Ritter (D) decided not to run for re-election, and then Secretary of the Interior Salazar also decided not to run, leaving the field clear for Denver mayor John Hickenlooper, who will run against former Rep. Scott McInnis. This is actually good for the Dems, because Ritter - once a promising candidate for nationwide office - was not doing well, and was probably going to lose. Hickenlooper, a fabulously popular mayor (and SJS favorite because of his name and the fact that he founded Wynkoop Brewing Company), will be a tougher beat for McInnis.

In Connecticut, longtime Senator and longshot presidential candidate Chris Dodd (D) also announced his retirement. Dodd had been embattled with various nebulous scandals (much like what his father went through), and has become something of an undeserving scapegoat for many. He was in trouble in the polls, but he will be replaced by CT Attorney General Dick Blumenthal, who will be the favorite. Incidentally, as Chris Cillizza points out, this very much affects the 2012 re-election hopes of one Joseph McJerkfacestein Lieberman (little known fact: He actually is from a rare clan of Irish Jews who were renowned for voting only for industries who donated their political campaigns).

Also, South Dakota Senator Brian Dorgan (D) announced his retirement, meaning the Dems will probably lose his Senate seat.

So, long and short: Two potential pickups for the GOP got a lot harder, and one got easier. If you missed the Daily Show rundown, the media largely portrayed this as a crisis for Democrats. I have no idea why.

Right, onto the best political state of 2010, Pennsylvania.

Governor
It's a crowded field that got a little less crowded yesterday.

On the Dem side, the favorite is Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato (who has raised about $6 million), accompanied by a crowd that includes former Senate candidate Joe Hoeffel, Auditor General Jack Wagner, businessman Tom Knox, and Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty. Of those, I feel like Hoeffel is the main challenge to Onorato, but with a field this scattered, it's impossible to know anything. I expect Doherty and Wagner will be the first to drop out, due mostly to how damn much this race is going to cost.

The GOP primary is generally assumed to be Attorney General Tom Corbett's race to lose. His main challenge (and the GOP's best candidate, in my opinion) was Rep. Jim Gerlach, until he dropped out yesterday to coast to re-election in Berks County one more time. This makes the party happy, because it basically clears the field and keeps a House seat in their hands (and they were never real thrilled that Gerlach was in the mix), but it is good news for the Dems, too. I have always doubted Corbett's statewide appeal in the general (he's been a pretty crappy, borderline corrupt AG), and Gerlach represented a well-funded tough, smart campaigner if he got through the primary.

Senate
The Democratic primary - between former Republican incumbent Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak, is down to #3 on Chris Cillizza's list of the best primaries, because Texas and Florida are getting even chippier, but it'll still be a beauty. Sestak is positioned as a more liberal, more local, less Washington player, but Specter has fought off tough challenges before, and PA loves him. The winner will take on Club for Greed leader Pat Toomey. He basically believes that anything that makes rich people richer is awesome, especially if it's lower taxes and less regulation. He will get to run as an outsider (because he keeps losing elections), and have him competitive and even ahead of Specter.

I remain skeptical. This is a millionaire running during a recession, and the thought of him working hard enough to win in this state is just not something I see happening. Plus, Specter's beaten Toomey before, and that was in a Republican primary. I know Rick Santorum won with basically the same issue profile, but he was a hard-working PA boy who ran mostly on social issues and local stuff, not corporate tax cuts amidst 11% unemployment. And he had a square jaw and looked like that not-too-bright quarterback in high school. Toomey looks like this:

I continue to see Toomey losing by double digits, but I'm in the minority.

We Are Trying Again in 2010

Greetings, friends, and Happy New Year. I'll skip the apologies and just say that, with 2010 being an election year, you can expect to hear a great deal more from this blog.

Let's start the year with a general view of the landscape. I don't mean some vague sense of how much people claim to like "Obama" or "Democrats" or "Congress." Those polls are almost totally useless, especially this far in advance of anything. Who cares what a voter thinks of Congress? What matters is what she thinks of her Congressman, and the person running against him.

From the larger view, the conventional wisdom is that the climate is bad for Democrats. There are a couple things to support this, and the most compelling is simply the law of large numbers. The Dems have won two big sets of seats in a row, which is essentially unprecedented, so the odds of winning more are by definition low. Remember, something like 90-95% House seats are not actually contestable anyway (thanks to gerrymandering), so there just aren't that many more to win, in some senses. Plus, some of the seats the Dems picked up they have really no business having, like the Lousiana 3rd, which they got either by luck or a GOP screwup. The second thing working against Dems is our essential fondness for change in competitive offices, which always works loosely against the party in power during bad times.

Of course, some seats are more interesting, like the one just lost in Alabama when Parker Griffith defected. Before you Dems out there go crazy, know that 1) in Alabama, like in Louisiana, switching parties is just not that big a deal, 2) he won a district, the Alabama Fifth, that gave Obama 38% of the vote, so he was not exactly a liberal, and 3) the Northern Alabama district - which is a weird product of New Deal policies - has not elected a Republican since the 1840s. It does, however, have a strange predilection for people named Parker. Okay, now that you're scratching your head trying to figure out how this plays out, you get a sense of why I like midterm elections.

They remain largely local and issue-driven, unlike the more personality and zeitgeist-fueled interminable marathons that are our presidential elections (the next one of which, incidentally, will start on November 11 of this year). For all the talk about the "Republican brand" or "presidential coattails," the reason the GOP lost seats is that the Rove doctrine called for the elimination of moderates, which left them with bad candidates who had to run while defending failed policies.

So, what is the landscape now?

Senate
There are 38 Senate elections this year, the soonest of which is two weeks from today, a special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. Of those, FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver says there are clearly 12 competitive races, and the rest heavily favor one side. Of the twelve likely to switch parties, 7 are currently Dem seats. Chris Cillizza has his top ten most likely to change as being 7-3 in favor of Republicans. So yes, here the CW reigns among the punditocracy. But to say we have limited data is putting it very, very mildly. For one thing, we don't even have candidates in some of them. Take Delaware, which everyone seems to agree the Dems are likely to lose. We don't even know if Beau Biden, the phenomenally attractive war hero/DA/Son of Joe, is running. If he is, I don't see him losing, no matter what type of race Mike Castle runs. (Full disclosure: Beau Biden is on my unofficial list of guys I think can be president in the next 15 years).

The last polling on the MA seat suggests Martha Coakley will have some trouble; she's only up nine. But it's Rasmussen, so I'll believe it when it's backed up by something more reliable. Still, for a Dem to have a single-digit lead in any poll in Massachusetts (which did, you'll recall, elect Mitt Romney) is alarming, and indicates that moderates everywhere are at least telling pollsters they're unsatisfied with the Democrats' performance.

House
The Dems are almost certain to lose a bunch of seats, but their current majority is almost 80, and it is extremely unlikely that is in jeopardy, despite gleeful sounding from Fox pundits. Both parties are being hit hard by retirements, and my current survey of the seats leads me think the midterm may be more of a wash than people expect.

Governors
Readers of this blog know of my abject hatred for gerrymandering, and the 2010 census, along with the GOP's stated strategy of winning statehouses to redistrict in their favor, makes these races more interesting - and potentially more important - than the rest of the slate. Incidentally, these races are also, at this point, more evenly divided (Cillizza has them 5-5 in his top 10). Of course, that's not including the two swing-state races - in New Jersey and Virginia - already won by Republicans. Add to that the fact that the Dems are almost certainly going to lose the governor's races in Kansas (Kathleen Sibelius gone to HHS) and Tennessee (term limits), and it's an uphill year here, too, in many ways.

Still, though, the Dems could well pick up mansions in states like Hawaii and Rhode Island (which is a fun race thanks to Lincoln Chafee's independent bid), and we have barely begun to touch primaries yet, where all sorts of dirt comes out.

All things being equal, Pennsylvania is the most interesting state this year from a national perspective. A competitive governor's race, lots of House intrigue (including a suddenly more interesting 7th), and a Senate race where the letdown of no Chris Matthews has been replaced by the Arlen Spectator Republicrat saga. Big stuff, with lots of good fodder for blogs.

"We exist so that every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge."

In the third century before Christ, a man named Demetrius of Phaleron had a modest goal: Collect all of the world's knowledge. He learned to dream big from his teacher, Aristotle, on whose Lyceum Demetrius modeled his own little building. It was the first ever attempt to gather books from other nations and cultures, an unprecedented effort to reach beyond the learning of a specific empire.

For hundreds of years, Demetrius' project made Alexandria and Ptolemaic Egypt the center of scholarship for the ancient world. The architecture he borrowed from the Lyceum is similar to that found in many universities and colleges today. Until 642, when some think an Arab army sacked it, it was home base for some of the greatest scholars who ever lived.

For a geek like me, Demetrius' dream is about the coolest one a person could ever have. Regardless of your personal or spiritual point of view, the sharing and pooling of knowledge is one of the few purposes that - I am fairly certain - is a sacred one. So I'm a fan of people, places and things that devote existences to that noble end.

I was able to tell you all of that stuff about the Library at Alexandria not because I know that type of thing off of the top of my head, but because Demetrius' effort has been reborn today. We call it Wikipedia. Thanks to the wonders of ever-increasing technological capacity and what Wired editor Chris Anderson called "the long tail" of knowledge, we are closer to collecting all of human knowledge than Demetrius could ever have dreamed.

Why do I bring this up?

One, because I wanted to post something a little off-beat before Thanksgiving, and a usual tract about how we built a country on myths about how we didn't try and exterminate the American Indians would be too big a downer. And between the last post and next one's update on the PA gubernatorial race, it caught my eye that Wikipedia needs, well, money.

Wikimedia is the nonprofit organization dedicated to - among other things - collecting all of human knowledge and making it accessible on the Web. And for those of you still huffing that it's not verifiable, I direct you to the study showing Wikipedia to be as accurate as the Encyclopedia Brittannica. Of course, it's not the same as primary research, and I wouldn't suggest citing it in articles for peer review, but it does currently have over 3.2 million articles in English alone, and is a source of comprehensive information of which Demetrius of Phaleron could only have dreamed.

So, since it's that time of year, I thought it was worth pointing out that I'm thankful for this modern Library of Alexandria that is so easy to take for granted. As someone who uses it at least once a day, I felt compelled to send them a small amount of money as a donation. After all, it takes some money to run the largest repository of knowledge in the world on less than 35 employees. And, as I mentioned, it's run by a nonprofit, which means it relies heavily on donations from users. Like many "long tail" campaigns, Wikipedia needs major donations less than it needs many small donations.

Above the shelves in the Library of Alexandria was carved an inscription: "The place of the cure of the soul." A bit dramatic, perhaps, but it alluded to the fact that knowledge can be a soothing balm for those of us living in uncertain times (as if there are any other kind). Wikimedia has taken that place of curing, and moved it into every living room and coffee shop in much of the world.

Happy Thanksgiving.

91 Things Obama Has Done - A Critique

So I got this list via e-mail. It's a list of 91 things Barack Obama has done, compiled by Dr. Robert Watson, who coordinates the American Studies program at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL. It's supposedly a rebuttal to all this talk that Obama hasn't done anything in his first 9 months. Let's get one thing straight before I go into my examination of this list: I think most of that "he hasn't done anything" criticism is total crap. 9 months ago, we were using words like "global economic meltdown" and "second Great Depression," and no one's using those terms now. Is that all because of Obama? Of course not, but being president is like playing QB or being a starting pitcher: you get more credit and more blame than you deserve for things that happen while you happen to be there.

Watson's list is proof of that. It's got all sorts of stuff in it, some of which is not really Obama's doing. I broke his list into separate categories, combined a few redundant categories, and came up with my own lists. In case you don't feel like reading 86 entries closely, my bottom line is that the list is a pretty good example of why it's hard to evaluate Obama so far; so much of what he does is either mixed or not finished yet that it's tough to grade, and you can see why many people don't like it. What is not lacking is stuff he's actually done. Watson's numbers come after mine. Because of the reorganization, they're obviously not in the original order.

Category One: Things that are not real things
This category is full of "accomplishments" that really just felt like a reach to me. They're either not things you can give Obama credit for (e.g. lower drug costs for seniors), things that are just symbolic (having a Seder in the White House), or things that struck me as just disingenuous (ending the media blackout/acting with transparency, when many have written about how close-to-the-vest the White House operates). Announcing intentions, for example, is not an accomplishment, even if you agree with those intentions.

1. 4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq
2. 6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information
3. 8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act
4. 9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible
5. 27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed
6. 46. Closed offshore tax safe havens
7. 51. Lower drug costs for seniors
8. 67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration
9. 68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud
10. 17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards
11. 48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back
12. 74. Making more loans available to small businesses
13. 76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court
14. 89. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform
15. 90. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
16. 80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan
17. 84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters
18. 85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket
19. 86. Held first Seder in White House
20. 59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy

Category Two: Things that you are supposed to do
I know that Bush did bad things and ran some crappy programs. No argument here. Anyone who's read this blog before knows that I am not a fan of Bush. But I choose not to hold Obama to that standard. So let's not give him credit for doing things that any competent and conscientious Republican (like maybe John McCain) almost certainly would have done by now. I know that those voices are not always at the front of the GOP, but I refuse to think that acting smarter than Sarah Palin is the same as accomplishing things.

1. 3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women
2. 7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family
3. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research/New federal funding for science and research labs
4. 20. New funds for school construction
5. 29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops
6. 35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job
7. 36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast
8. 44. Expanding vaccination programs
9. 45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters
10. 56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals
11. 70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules
12. 71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmentalrules, regulations, and reports 13.
77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans
14. 79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel

Category Three: Telling People to Think About Things
This category contains "accomplishments" that amount to studying things or talking about things. I don't believe these are worthless. In fact, I am very happy that Obama has changed the culture from one where blind instinct is accepted as a reason for doing massive things. But they're not what we commonly refer to as achievements.

1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending
2. 2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices
3. 34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office
4. 32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic
5. 33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions
6. 43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions
7. 50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources
8. 63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness
9. 64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient
10. 60. Established a new cyber security office
11. 69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco
12. 75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare
13. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform

Category Four: Actual Accomplishments
To his credit, this is the largest section. It has 30-some items, which I've subdivided along subjective axes of big/small and good/mixed. Obviously, all accomplishments are mixed, because someone will not agree with even the most successful efforts. But I tried to examine them against Obama's stated goals.

First, let's look at smaller things. Please note nothing here is small in an absolute sense, and I have great appreciation for a lot of these. But scale is important when you're the supposed leader of the free world:

Good Things
1. 5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB
2. 15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research
3. 28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards
4. 30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010
5. 31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols
6. 40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children
7. 41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program
8. 42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones
9. 53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel
10. 54. Improved housing for military personnel
11. 55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses
12. 19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools
13. 58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program
14. 39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government
15. 47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals
16. 62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts
17. 78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000
18. 72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons
19. 66. Improving benefits for veterans
Smaller Mixed things
20. 37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles
21. 73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive

Okay, now the big things. Again "mixed" refers less to anyone's personal feelings than to how effectively the effort addressed what Obama said he wanted to. For example, the massive stimulus package did step the economy back from the brink for now, which was the point, while the "banking rescue" failed to really reform the way major firms do business.:

Big Good Things
1. 12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date
2. 13/61. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan/ Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.
3. 22. US Auto industry rescue plan
4. 52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings 5. 24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan
6. 57/65.. Increasing student loans/Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced
7. 83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production
Big Mixed Things
8. 81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan
9. 10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House
10. 11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration 11. 18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect
12. 21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out
13. 23/25.. Housing rescue plan/The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying
14. 38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales
15. 49. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices 16. 26. US financial and banking rescue plan
17. 82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans
18. 87. Attempting to reform the nation's healthcare system which is the most expensive in the world yet leaves almost 50 million without health insurance and millions more under insured So now then.

That's seven major accomplishments that did basically what they were supposed to (so far as we can judge today). Obama passed the stimulus plan, stopped the stop-loss policy, revamped military spending, reformed the auto industry, stopped no-bid practices for Medicare, increased student loans and made them more accessible, and funded the creation of the national energy grid. Obviously, health care reform will be added in a few months, even if it's too early to tell exactly what that will look like.

That is not half bad. Even if you're horribly opposed to what he's done, there's real progress and accomplishment there. And then we add 22 other, less massive accomplishments. So let's all shut up with the cries that "he hasn't done anything yet" (yes, Newsweek, I'm looking at you). The fact that he hasn't enacted a massive liberal agenda (sorry, Hannity) has a lot more to do with the fact that he was never a left-wing nut, but a moderate centrist. In this, Anna Quindlen's Newsweek piece was correct: Just because liberals loved that he was a black community organizer, that never meant that he was actually an ideologue in sympathy with all of their views. But why say he's done nothing?

The reality is that Obama has made almost no constituency totally happy, which is why he gets accused of inaction. People see progress only when its in the direction they expected and either wanted (or feared, like Fox News). So the fact that so many of these accomplishments defy easy political labels (reforming the auto industry, credit card reform, stopping torture, adding troops to Afghanistan) means that we don't have a place to put them in our minds (what psychology calls "schema"), and so we sort of forget about them. I suppose the real question is whether Obama will continue to struggle with a population that is unsure how to see so many of his actions, or whether we, in the coming years, will be able to find some internal narrative that allows us to see everything he does in some type of cohesive picture.

Election Day

Some of you probably forgot that it's Election Day, since it's an off year and civic duties don't warrant a day off in this country. And this election day is particularly sleepy, given that there are only two and a half nationally watched races going on, and they have staunchly refused to take on national implications.

The two races are gubernatorial: New Jersey and Virginia.

In Jersey, incumbent John Corzine (D) is facing challengers Chris Christie (R) and a fiscally conservative Chris Daggett (I). You may recall Christie being up large a few months ago, before the predictable mudslinging and blatant dishonesty on both sides reminded Jersey voters that they disagree with Christie on everything. Daggett's actually reasonable, but he probably takes more votes from Christie, whose main support will be from people that believe he can magically lower taxes in a state where that absolutely can not be done. The race, according to Pollster.com, is dead even at 42, but I've believed for months that Jersey will re-elect Corzine, who at least isn't personally corrupt.

In Virginia, a race that began with buzz and star names like Terry McAuliffe has settled over the last few months into a very local race that Republican Robert McDonnell is expected to win comfortably. He's maintained about a 10-point lead for months in what is still a largely Republican state, and there's no reason to suspect that Creigh Deeds has a miracle left.

The half a race is the special election in the New York 23rd, which used to belong to now Army Secretary John McHugh. This is a notable race mostly because a third party candidate, Doug Hoffman, ran at the Republican (Dede Scozzafava) from the right, and has forced her out of the race about four days ago. She endorsed the Democrat, Bill Owens, but it's hard to see him winning that district. Scozzafava a progressive pro-business pragmatist with libertarian tendencies, used to be someone welcome in the Republican Party. She's smart, she's reasonable, she's been an upstate New York lawmaker for a while. She received endorsements of Newt Gingrich and the NRA, the teachers' union, the Log Cabin Republicans, and even the DailyKos guy. So of course, the GOP kicked her to the curb and a well-funded right-winger has taken her out. Of course, a Hoffman staffer accused her of betraying the GOP, but it's hard not to see it as the other way around. But this is today's Republican Party: No moderates allowed.

Whoever wins in NJ and elsewhere, the victorious parties will make a big deal of it. And it is, to some extent, a big deal; the RNC has said publicly their road back to respectability is not through a broader party which tolerates traditionally Republican viewpoints, but a strategic takeover of governors' mansions so that they can control gerrymandering after the 2010 census. So the races have importance. But whoever wins will try and make these races a statement about national issues, which they are decidedly not.

Virginians have always thought of themselves as distinct, and their elected officials have shown us that they vote locally on local issues. They will vote for both parties (Douglas Wilder was governor), but prefer moderate Republicans to moderate Democrats when they have the choice, and here they do. Jerseyites have insanely high taxes, and so are angry at Corzine, but ultimately agree with him on just about everything else, and probably even know that Christie can't actually do anything about their state's budget crisis. And the New York 23rd is a strange district on the border of very cold places that is generally very, very conservative. These are local races, and they don't tell us much about the national playing field, except that the GOP does not tolerate moderates, which we already knew.

In our local elections (which many of us are likely skipping) people with the potential to make fairly large changes in our life will win by a matter of dozens of votes, because it's a Tuesday, so we have to work, and they can't award huge contracts to major corporations, and so can't afford ads to tell us how they'll change our cities.

The good news is that, starting tomorrow, we can all start obsessing about the 2010 midterms.

Followup on the Nobel

I thought I'd link Chris Hitchens' thoughts on the Nobel, which are predictably more crotchety and Republican-tinged than mine, but similar enough that if you enjoyed my satirical thoughts you'll enjoy his serious ones. He has more examples of head-shaking choices with the Nobel; I totally forgot that Mother Theresa said abortion was the world's biggest threat to peace in her acceptance speech.

The bottom line is that the prize has nothing to do with Peace, and the recent trend toward human rights activists suggests a need for a new prize more than it does a reason to abandon Alfred Nobel's original instructions. Hitchens' points about the politics of the award are less compelling in the Peace prize (Kissinger, remember, was a Republican) than they are in the literature prize, where I believe he is absolutely right; political correctness has, at least recently, overtaken merit in their choice of laureates.

Lest an e-passerby read this blog and leave with the wrong impression of me (perish the thought!), though, I do want to point out that I think the prize can be great, and should be a good thing, but that it just hasn't been that way, probably because the Swedes forgot about Nobel's original (quite specific) criteria, and instead looked for high-profile recipients. My Nobel Peace Prize would be the highest accolade for diplomats and thinkers, not something that competes with Grammy for Audiobook recordings.

All of that said, there is a case to be made for Obama, as I tried to slip into my previous diatribe, and it goes like this:
1) When the world's largest economy and military power is hated universally, that is bad for peace.
2) As flawed as it is, the U.N. is valuable, important and necessary as a complement to U.S. best national interest, and Obama's explicit acknowledgment that a skillful president must balance international concerns with our own endows the U.N. with some credibility (and resources). A credible U.N. encourages nations on the fence to think about it as a viable alternative to war.
3) Acknowledging that it was probably not the best idea to launch into the Iraq War means that countries are less worried we will do it again (soon) in Iran or Korea or Colombia, which means they are less likely to react aggressively or build up arms in case we do. For those of you that also think that makes us soft: it was legendary softie Sun-Tzu who said that choosing battles is the most important part of winning them.
4) Even before he was president, Obama did a lot of work on nuclear proliferation, and it has worked. In fact, Fareed Zakaria has detailed how this is basically the only way in which we have really made the world safer. Since the Cold War ended, there are fewer nuclear nations, fewer warheads, and more safeguards. Obama played an active role in that as a Senator, and has continued to as President.
5) It is much, much, MUCH harder for militant Islamic groups to recruit against a man named Barack Hussein Obama. Since many people would call militant Islam one of the biggest - if not the biggest - threat to world peace, that has to count for something.
6) By giving up the Polish missile defense shield, which was a crazy and non-functioning idea that only existed to piss off Russia, he has aligned Russia and China in a firmer stance against a nuclear Iran, which some believe would be one of the greatest threats to world peace.

Now, that case is, it's fair to say, not the strongest of any person on the planet. But it also isn't nothing, and it's actually more than plenty of other Nobel winners have done. An opponent might point out that giving Obama credit for #5 and #1 is not fair, since it's not things he did as much as things he is. To that opponent, I would say: Welcome to Earth, where everything is like that. Another opponent would argue that Obama's lack of belligerence makes him a pushover, and that peace is achieved through deterrence, which requires not just strength but others' belief that you are willing to use it. After pointing out that Obama is hardly a peacenik (see: Afghanistan, pirates), I would respond that deterrence through strength requires that the U.S. have resources necessary to fight. I believe that the single greatest thing we did to encourage Korea and Iran's bad behavior was get involved in two expensive wars, because it let the entire world know that our resources were tied up elsewhere. It was like saying "Go ahead, mess with us, it's not like we have the people or money free to invade you right now." Also, there's that whole politics thing where the only truly effective way to strengthen an unpopular dictator's support is to make his people feel threatened by external forces.

It's true that Obama wouldn't win my Nobel Peace Prize, but then no one who would have was likely in contention. And, while only a small portion of his peace value is really due to choices he has made, rather than who he is, I have no question that the world is more peaceful with him as president. So, if I cared, I'd be okay with it.