Supply side won't save us this time

David Frum has an interesting review on the Frum Forum on Bruce Bartlett's book The New American Economy.

Bruce Bartlett was one of the original supply-siders. He shows that in the 1970's and 80's, three US Presidents (Nixon, Ford, and Carter) had all tried, and failed, to effectively fight the sluggish economy and high inflation of the time.

At the time, most economists were saying that a recession and inflation cancelled each other out and couldn't exist at the same time, even if the reality was disproving the theory.

A small, "dissident" group of economists came up a way to fight non-inflationary growth: supply-side economics. And it worked. "Carter's Recession" as Reagan called it, ended, thanks largely to supply side economics.

But Bartlett argues further that supply-side is not a cure all. It was a cure for the '70s and '80s stagflation. Supply side economics were "...elegantly designed to counter stagflation. Other problems required other solutions. And boy, do America and the world now face other problems: deflation, debt, and the failure of economic growth to translate into rising incomes for most Americans."

I like the way Frum ends his review:

"A free-market economic policy for our time would stress reflation to combat deflation and a payroll tax holiday to spur job creation. It would propose health reforms to control costs and thus boost middle class incomes and slow the rise in government spending. It would, as Bartlett has done, call for consumption taxes to balance the budget and avert the payroll and income tax increases that will otherwise befall.

Such a policy would depart from present conservative orthodoxy. But the supplysiders departed from the conservative orthodoxy of their day, and we admire them for it! We do not honor them by refusing to emulate them."

Tea Party Movement beginning to fracture

CNN-It emerged in anger and it threatens to split in anger.
One major group in the Tea Party movement -- named after the famous Boston Tea Party -- is set to host its first convention in February, with former Alaska governor and 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as its keynote speaker.

But there are fractures in the movement that threaten its future. And if history's any guide, such movements tend to flame out.

The Tea Party movement erupted on April 15 -- tax day -- over criticism of President Obama's economic policies and what organizers called big government out of control. The movement, made up of local, state and national groups, continues to protest what it considers fiscally unsound policies.

And the movement is well funded. Action groups like FreedomWorks -- chaired by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey -- helped organize and fund its April 15 rally in Washington.
Other groups, including Americans for Prosperity, Tea Party Nation and Tea Party Patriots, are also vying for the helm of the movement, and it's creating what some are calling "competitive chaos."

Some Tea Partiers have voiced anger and concern over whether the powerful groups are "astroturfing'' what is supposed to be a grass-roots coalition -- the idea that the movement is being organized by old-fashioned GOP bigwigs to promote their agenda.

Donna Klink, of the Golden Triangle Tea Party-Texas, said in a post on the Tea Party Patriots Web site that the chaos needs to be addressed.
"We must craft a simple coalition message that we can all agree on. ... We should all remember the simple principles of 'Strength in Numbers' and 'United We Stand, Divided We Fall,' " she wrote.

Klink added that individual Tea Party groups can keep their own identity and beliefs while "still reaching out to and working with other groups that share common goals."
"We MUST stop this battle within and fight together," she insists.
The factions, however, have said they are only trying to engage citizens in fiscal conservatism -- and disagreements are inevitable...

...While anger over economic issues sparked the movement, it has come to represent anger in general -- from anger over health care reform to just anger against politicians, like Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

At rallies over the summer and fall, crowds carried signs portraying Obama as Hitler and likening his policies to those of Nazi Germany. In one case, heavy criticism forced a Tea Party group in Danville, Virginia, to cancel a bonfire in which an effigy of Pelosi was to be burned.
And there's the threat that fringe members will taint the public's perception of the movement.

"The Tea Party combines the best elements of civic activism with some of the worst elements of fringe extremism," said GOP strategist and CNN contributor John Feehery in a CNN.com commentary. "While most Tea Party activists are genuinely concerned about the future of the country, some others see conspiracies around every corner and use unacceptable rhetoric to communicate their displeasure with the president."

Steinhauser noted that the fringe elements only make up a small part of the movement and should not come to represent the cause....

...That issue is similar to what other populist movements in the U.S. have faced over time.
Jon Avlon, author of "Independent Nation: How Centrists Can Change American Politics," has said that history shows that Tea Party-esque movements and "demagogues rise when the economy turns south."

"They specialize in blaming others for the troubles with wild accusations. It's a time-honored formulation, a powerful narcotic for the nervous and dispossessed, with violent side effects," he wrote in a CNN.com commentary.

The populist movement started in the 19th century. The Populist Party later emerged, made up largely of farmers, and coalesced around opposition to the gold standard as currency.
Its ties to the free-silver movement, among other things, failed to resonate with a broader base of Americans -- especially urbanites in populous states.

Later in the 20th century, populist anger rose up during the Great Depression, focused on big business's role in the 1929 stock market crash and its subsequent effect on American society. And in the late 1960s, populist anger was geared against big government.
"But now we've got both -- anger at big business and big government," said Avlon, a columnist for The DailyBeast.com. "It's a perfect political storm, primed for a return to pitchfork politics. ... The fringe is blurring with the base, creating leverage on the party leadership."

Nathan Gonzalez of the Rothenberg Political Report said that in order for Tea Party activism to blossom into a lasting movement, it "has to exhibit some real influence that goes beyond a set of rallies."
He said that while there's the risk of fading away -- based on the divisions within the movement -- it has growth potential.

"There's certainly a risk of dying out [like many populist movements] but there's the potential for having some staying power as well," he said. "If they become larger or more organized there's a potential to have more influence. It depends on how they're able to harness the energy that's there now and translate that into future success."

And part of that organization could come from having a face to associate with the Tea Party name.
Palin, Fox News' Glenn Beck and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, have emerged as Tea Party darlings.
Gonzalez said the Tea Partiers need to have a one person to identify with their message -- much in the way Obama became identified with "change" in the 2008 presidential election.

If the Tea Party movement wants to develop into a political party or force, Gonzalez added, it should take the lessons of the populists and other third-party movements to heart.
"I think if a third party wants to take off, there has to be a face with it. And Ross Perot was a good example of that in 1992 and 1996. It's become more difficult [with this movement]."
----------------------------------------

Watching the tea-party movement, I've seen some things that are worth protesting. But I've also seen the fringe there; those that call Obama a Hitler/Socialist/Fascist etc...I liked that they were protesting fiscal irresponsibility. But I really wish those same people would hold accountable those they hold up as heroes. For example, both Bush and Palin were extremely fiscally irresponsible while they were in charge of their respective states. Bush caused the worst deficit ever (Obama's hasn't hit yet, so it doesn't really count as the worst-yet), and Palin's bridge to nowhere was a disaster (yes, she started the bridge to nowhere, she was for it before she was against it, it was in fact her baby).

What I hope to see if this movement takes hold and becomes a third party, as the commentary above postulates, is true fiscal responsibility [read: fiscal conservatism]. Until then, it's just another populist movement destined to fizzle out.

Waterboarding saved NO lives.

I have previously blogged about the morality and legality of waterboarding here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are other articles out there that deal with this, such as the illegality of threats of imminent death. But this post will be about the other argument I've heard: "It worked." Not true.

Even though Cheney has claimed that documents would vindicate his claim that his "enhanced interrogation techniques" [torture] saved "hundreds of thousands of lives," (a claim he later backtracked on, implicity denying that they saved a single life in reality) one of the FBI's best interrogaters has shown that, in reality, waterboarding doesn't work.

Here are some of the highlights of the article:

Former FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan testified on the use of torture before a subcommittee of the Senate Judiciary Committee and stated that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are "slow, ineffective, unreliable, and harmful to our efforts." Soufan was able to obtain valuable intel using techniques labeled the "informed interrogation approach", which are consistent with the Army Field Manual. His testimony is fascinating.

Soufin was the agent who first interrogated Abu Zubaydah, the man now famous for being waterboarded 83 times. Zubaydah had been badly wounded in the struggle to capture him and was almost immediately taken to a hospital. It was there that Soufin began his interrogation, and gained "important, actionable intelligence" within the first hour regarding the role Khalid Sheikh Mohammed played in the 9-11 attacks. Committee Chair Sheldon called this "one of the more significant pieces of intelligence information we've ever obtained in the war on terror."

Soon the CIA-CTC was brought in, and a private contractor instructed them to subject Zubaydah to harsh interrogation techniques. Michael Isikoff wrote that: "Agency operatives were aiming to crack him with rough and unorthodox interrogation tactics—including stripping him nude, turning down the temperature and bombarding him with loud music." Soufan told the committee that Zubaydah "shut down." Later, Soufan interrogated the man again, using Army sanctioned methods, and Zubaydah disclosed information about the alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. According to Soufan, the contractor soon reasserted control, ordering the use of "enhanced" techniques and Zubaydah shut down again. Worried, Soufan objected to his FBI superiors, and was soon ordered home by Director Mueller, who also decreed that FBI personnel should no longer participate in CIA interrogations.

Soufan's account of this interrogation contradicts the May 2005 memo from the Office of Legal Counsel which implied that this valuable information was elicited from Zubaydah as a result of the harsh interrogation techniques used. Soufan's account is deeply damaging to arguments about torture's effectiveness Dick Cheney and other Bush-era officials have been making of late.

Soufan describes his methods as follows:
The approach is based on leveraging our knowledge of a detainee's mindset, vulnerabilities, and culture together with using intelligence already known about him. The interrogator uses a combination of interpersonal, cognitive, and emotional strategies to exact the information needed. If done correctly, this approach works quickly and effectively because it outsmarts the detainee using a method that he is not trained nor able to resist.

He then critiqued the "enhanced techniques":
The Army Field Manual is not about being soft; it's about outwitting, outsmarting, and manipulating the detainee. The approach is in sharp contrast of the enhanced interrogation method that instead tries to subjugate the detainee into submission through humiliation and cruelty. The idea behind it is to force the detainee to see the interrogator as the master who controls his pain. It's merely an exercise in trying to force compliance rather than elicit cooperation. A major problem with it is it is ineffective. Al Qaeda are trained to resist torture. As shocking as these techniques are to us, their training prepares them for much worse. The torture that they would receive if caught by dictatorships, for example. In a democracy, however, there is a glass ceiling the interrogator cannot breach. And eventually, the detainee will call the interrogator's bluff..... The technique is also unreliable. We don't know whether the detainee is being truthful or just speaking to mitigate his discomfort. The technique is also slow. Waiting 180 hours as part of a sleep deprivation stage is time we cannot afford to waste in a ticking-bomb scenario.
-----

There is more in the article linked above. It's a good read. We could've gotten the information in many different ways. But no, we wanted to feel better and [torture] our detainees, getting back at them for 9/11. But we did not have to, and it was an exercise in futility.

Here is something else that has bothered me in this whole debate: the questioning of our patriotism if we have a legitimate problems with torture, even of our enemies. I personally have had my Republican credentials questioned because I didn't, and never will, support torturing our enemies.

I think this summed it up quite well for me:

Conservative pundits casually liken waterboarding to prep-school initiation, and claim that anyone who opposes prisoner abuse must simply hate America. The president himself asks us to move on. And the great number of ordinary Americans who have, in fact, expressed outrage are dismissed as members of the bloodthirsty "hard left."

Leftwing vs Rightwing vs liberal vs conservative vs moderate vs progressive...

I was reading this article on Progressive Republican about the terms that get thrown around. I liked it a lot, so I'm going to paste much of it here. Basically, the author, William Golden, is tired of labels being thrown at the other side and back as insults. Especially when "liberals" or "progressives" are labelled as "left-wing" and "conservatives" are called "right-wing"...

Here are his definitions. I think I agree with them:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Left-wing and Right-wingers often sound like liberals and conservatives but are not afraid to trample truth in order to achieve their political goals. “Propaganda” is often too strong a term to even begin to describe the logic and the veracity of what passes as political discussion from both ends of the spectrum.

Liberals and Conservatives both have principles and represent what is best in America. They just disagree. They may even see truth differently but they both try to put America first. America is not a victim when these two meet — preferably over a beer or some other wholesome American pasttime. America is blessed because at the end of the day we all, liberal and conservative alike, are challenged in our views and there wisdom and answers from both.

A Moderate is absolutely the finest blending of red, white and blue. Moderates are perhaps the most practical of all Americans — their focus is on consideration of the facts and selecting the best solutions. Unlike liberals and conservatives they seldom have the hurdle of having to get past their pride to get on with getting on to finding an answer. Unfortunately perhaps, being a political moderate does not work everywhere in the USA and the result is that moderate politicians are often caught crossing the street when the light turns against them. God bless them.

Progressives are made up of liberals, moderates and conservatives. A progressive will normally claim fondness for one of the aforementioned political outlooks. The two greatest differences between progressives and their other American kinfolk is that they are proactive, rather than reactive; and they live in the land of ‘why not?!’ Progressives sometimes share the same challenges that moderates do, except they’ve figured out how to run like hell across the street when they see the lights change.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like these definitions. Anyone want to add to them?

How the GOP can win again.

In my last post I gave a summary of why the Republican Party needs its centrists, progressives, and moderates (like me!) in order to survive.

I've also heavily criticized the party in previous posts, leading some (BluePitBull) to question my place within the party. Many criticisms and not a lot of suggestions. So, here is my list, incomplete as it may be, of what I believe the GOP needs to do, change, and become in order to become the party that wins again.

Based on a few sources which I'll name and link here (if possible) as well as heavy opinion, I'll lay out my case.

First of all, Mike Murphy, consultant to many heavy hitters in the GOP, is predicting an "Ice Age" for the Republicans if they don't change things. Why? Because the demographics that kept them in power 20 years ago through the Bush years have changed:

The Ice Age Cometh

...For years, Republicans won elections because the country was chock-full of white middle-class voters who mostly pulled the GOP lever on Election Day. Today, however, that formula is no longer enough.

...It was a huge shock to the GOP when Barack Obama won Republican Indiana last year. The bigger news was how he did it. Latino voters delivered the state. Exit polls showed that they provided Obama with a margin of more than 58,000 votes in a state he carried by a slim 26,000 votes. That's right, GOP, you've entered a brave new world ruled by Latino Hoosiers, and you're losing.

...In 1980, Latino voters cast about 2% of all votes. Last year it was 9%, and Obama won that Hispanic vote with a crushing 35-point margin. By 2030, the Latino share of the vote is likely to double...Young voters are another huge GOP problem. Obama won voters under 30 by a record 33 points. And the young voters of today, while certainly capable of changing their minds, do become all voters tomorrow...

Rather than face up to all this, too many in the GOP are stuck in a swoon of nostalgia. Most of our party leaders come from bloodred GOP states or safe districts, so they are far more at home in the tribal politics of Republican primaries than in those of the country as a whole. You could say their radio dials are stuck on AM. The result is we hear a lot about going back to "the winning ways of Ronald Reagan." Well, I love Reagan too. But demographics no longer do. In 1980, Reagan beat Jimmy Carter by 10 points. If that contest were held again today, under the current demographics of the electorate per exit polls, the election would be much closer, with Reagan probably winning by about 3 points...

So here is my list, as well as reasons why.

First, I'll start with how to keep the base, and add to it. 

1. Become fiscally conservative again. The party has lost all credibility with many in the US. The Republican Congress kicked major butt during the Clinton era, balancing the budget. But under Bush, they doubled the US Public Debt, which was projected to have been paid off by now. So while I agree with them crying foul at the Obama stimulus(es) and bail outs, the majority of the country thinks of the word hypocrisy. Become hard line fiscally conservative. Stop talking about "tax cuts." Just keep tax increases off the table. Drop spending, but keep tax rates where they are. Also included in this is scaling back military spending. Not effectiveness, but much of the military spending is redundant & outdated, and not enough is going where it needs to: the men and women serving abroad.
2. To keep the conservative Christian  crowd, keep the pro-life mantra going. Many evangelicals are one issue voters, especially those over 25. Keep the pro-life issue in the party and you've got them. You'll keep Catholics, too. In this, stay hard line socially conservative.
3. To gain the youth, become gay friendly. Most of us have gay friends and family. Most of us are for gay marriage, equality, and the like. We don't see things like the boomers do. Gay marriage is okay. We view the GOP's resistance to this the same as we see the women's suffrage movement, the racial rights movement, and the abolition movement: Old White Guys holding back the minority. If you became gay friendly, but kept being pro-life, you'd still be the socially conservative choice as compared to the Dems.
4. To gain the Latino population, become immigrant-friendly. Latinos voted for Obama, plain and simple. Why? Not only was he a Democrat, which historically are better for the immigrant, he spoke to them, not at them. The GOP needs to do the same. Get Latino Republicans to the forefront. I know they exist. Have them put Spanish-speaking ads everywhere. Change the way you look at immigration. Don't do amnesty, but have a graduated plan along the lines of fixing the system now, since it is mind-boggling how difficult and mean it can be to those legally here. Those that are here illegally, make them pay a fine and get in line now. If they don't, and you find them, kick 'em out. If they commit a felony and are convicted before gaining citizenship, kick 'em out. Give them five years to become proficient (not fluent, but proficient) in english before gaining their citizenship. You need to be able to go to the store, pay bills, order pizza, and go to the bank in english.

That's all I have for now. I'll have more later if this post goes well. If anyone wants to add to my list, go right ahead. If anyone would like to (intelligently) debate/discuss those things I did write, you're welcome to. Those that come here to hit and run, calling me "closet" lib, or other such nonsense, will be deleted.

In closing, from Murphy's article linked above:

Saving the GOP is not about diluting conservatism but about modernizing it to reflect the country it inhabits instead of an America that no longer exists.