Liberal Values

It is a slow week in the United States with the 4th of July holiday. The SciFi Channel is taking a week off from Doctor Who due to the holiday, but this has been a very interesting week for those watching in the U.K. and those of us downloading the episodes after they are shown there. This post contains very major spoilers and those watching on the SciFi Channel might want to hold off on reading. The spoilers are far more significant than the news which leaked ahead of time that the Daleks play a major part and that Davros has survived. If you read further, you have been warned.

The Stolen Earth is part of an effort of Russell T. Davies to really go out with a bang as he concludes his tenure as show runner. The earth is literally stolen and then attacked by a new Dalek race cloned directly from Davros. The story brings together all of the supporting characters who have been companions to The Doctor since the series returned: Torchwood’s Capt. Jack Harkness (John Barrowman), Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen), Dr. Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman) and Rose Tyler (Billie Piper) unite to battle the Daleks.

The Doctor is reunited with Rose in the final moments but gets mortally injured, setting up the tremdous cliff hanger for the finale, Journey’s End. The episode will be an extended sixty-five minute show. Having the earth in danger is not a big enough cliff hanger for Davies to end on as viewers would have no doubt that The Doctor would manage to save the earth. Instead Davies came up with the biggest cliff hanger possible as The Doctor began to regenerate.

There are many possible ways for this cliff hanger to play out. It could turn out to be a failed regeneration and The Doctor might remain in the form of David Tennant. The other extreme is that David Tennant really is leaving and they have done an incredible job of keeping this a secret in Great Britain, where a change in the actor playing The Doctor really is big news.

I suspect that something in between these two extremes might occur. There very well might be a new Doctor formed from the regeneration, but the question would be how long he (or she) would be around. The episode might end with a cosmic reset, which would be easy to do with the current story possibly occuring outside of normal time.

Another consideration is that there might be two Doctors for some time. We might both have a new Doctor for the regeneration and there has been speculation that the David Tennant form will be cloned back from the severed hand in the Tardis. This would be a way around the limit in regenerations which are possible, allowing the series to continue for many years to come. If there are two doctors, this might even last through next year as instead of a regular series there will be special episodes, with Tennant not necessarily staring in all. Perhaps whatever happens in the season finale will not be totally resolved for another year.

The fate of David Tennant’s Doctor is not the only question. Donna is not expected to return as a companion next year. She might simply return home with her family, or other possibilities exist. There has been speculation that the reason Donna has been able to control The Tardis is that she is actually a Time Lord, possibly The Rani. Maybe Catherine Tate will regenerate herself by the end of the season but her character will remain in the series.

It is getting to the point where it appears that some in the media are going out of their way to try to fabricate examples of Obama changing his position. I suspect that this is because lazy journalists find it easier to write a story claiming a politician has flip-flopped as opposed to really discussing their position. Perhaps it is simply that they never understood his views in the first place. The latest example is on Obama’s position on the war.

The Politico begins a misleading story by writing, “Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) on Thursday backed off his firm promise to withdraw combat forces from Iraq immediately and instead said he could ‘refine’ his plan after his trip to Baghdad later this month.” The Caucus does a better job of quoting Obama’s statements and instead of characterizing this as backing away from a promise says, “many of the nuances that have long been tucked into Mr. Obama’s policy have begun to emerge.”

For those who have paid attention to the details of Obama’s position, as opposed to stopping after the first sound bites, nothing has changed. I discussed the same topic back in March when Samantha Power made it clear that the sixteen month time table was not written in stone, Power also said:

You can’t make a commitment in whatever month we’re in now, in March of 2008, about what circumstances are gonna be like in Jan. 2009. We can’t even tell what Bush is up to in terms of troop pauses and so forth. He will of course not rely upon some plan that he’s crafted as a presidential candidate or as a U.S. senator. He will rely upon a plan, an operational plan that he pulls together, in consultation with people who are on the ground, to whom he doesn’t have daily access now, as a result of not being the president.

For those who are still fighting the primary battles, I also noted in the same post that the Clinton camp had said essentially the same thing–at least on some days as later Clinton in this post is an example of Clinton also saying the opposite. No politician running in the winter and spring of 2008 could say with certainty the exact steps they would take in 2009 as this would depend upon conditions on the ground at the time. Any settlement will also require diplomacy with Iraq and their neighbors, making it impossible to state an exact plan before taking office.

The interview I quoted above was only one example of this being discussed by the Obama campaign. Steve Benen presents another example:

Some are interpreting these comments as either a reversal or evidence of a looming reversal. I don’t see it that way at all. In fact, if you’d told me that these exact same remarks came from Obama in February, I’d believe you.

As the Democratic primary process unfolded, the Clinton campaign tried to get out in front of this issue by saying that she was committed to her withdrawal plan — no matter what. When Clinton’s communications director was pressed on whether Clinton would proceed with a withdrawal regardless of conditions on the ground, he said, “Yes.”

Obama was never actually willing to go there, and as far as I can tell, has always given himself some flexibility on troop withdrawal. Here’s a report from four months ago:

“Susan Rice, foreign policy adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, told reporters a short time ago during another conference call that it is “striking” if Clinton’s troop withdrawal plan would not be subject to some judgment about conditions at the time. Obama, Rice said, is committed to withdrawing “one to two brigades a month,” but also to going slower if that pace would threaten the safety of U.S. personnel.”

That, in a nutshell, is what Obama said today, too. In fact, as far back as March, Samantha Power argued that the next president would have to consider conditions on the ground when implementing a withdrawal plan. Indeed, I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve heard Obama say that he wants to be as careful getting out as Bush was reckless in going in.

In terms of “refining” his policy, that, too, is consistent with Obama’s general approach — he crafted a withdrawal policy nearly two years ago. Of course it’s going to be refined based on changing conditions.

With that in mind, Greg Sargent raises a good point about the context:

“These strike me as less a signal of a coming change in his position on withdrawal and more like a combined effort to defuse the charge that he’ll withdraw recklessly and to preserve flexibility as commander in chief.”

Quite right. The McCain campaign wants desperately to argue that Obama supports an immediate, “precipitous” withdrawal, that would disregard conditions and/or the wishes of commanders. Given this, Obama’s point is pretty straightforward — he wants to give the Pentagon a new mission (getting out safely), based on a flexible timetable. Nothing he said today changes that formulation at all. I understand concerns about Obama “moving to the middle,” but is remarks in Fargo aren’t evidence of a shift.

While the Clinton campaign had taken both sides on the question as to whether the withdrawal plans were firm regardless of the conditions, Obama has been consistent in placing qualifications based upon the situation once he takes office.

There are at least two key differences between Obama and McCain on the war. Obama realized going to war n Iraq was a mistake from the beginning while McCain was in favor of the war. Obama realizes that our national interests, as well as the interests of those in the region, are best served by a policy aimed at getting out of Iraq while John McCain is willing to remain for one hundred years. The media is resorting to trivialities in making an issue over whether Obama will get out in exactly sixteen months, along with being incorrect if they claim that this represents a change in his position.

We’ve all heard all the arguments about how Barack Obama is an elitist. Being a professor of Constitutional law certainly does make him part of an elite, but that is exactly the type of elitist we need after eight years of George Bush. If people find being an elitist to be a reason not to vote for someone, they might look at this description of John McCain written by Matthew Yglesias:

John McCain is an all-American regular guy who, like most people, earns his keep by marrying an heiress. Like average, everyday folks the McCain’s rely on credit cards to make ends meet month-to-month “Cindy McCain charged as much as $500,000 in a single month on one American Express card and $250,000 on another, while one of their two dependent children had an AmEx card with a monthly balance as large as $50,000.” Yes it’s true, one of McCain’s dependent children spent approximately the median annual household income of the United States in a single month and that’s how McCain knows how to connect with regular people.

Similarly, Mrs. McCain “favors suits made by the German designer Escada, which typically retail for around $3,000 a pop” so she understands that most Americans welcome Wal-Mart’s discount prices. And like many Americans, the McCains are very effected by developments in the real estate market, since “trusts and corporations controlled by her and her children spent nearly $11 million between the summer of 2004 and February 2008 on three condominiums in Phoenix and a pair outside San Diego.” The McCains understand that these days many young people graduate from college saddled with debt and need a helping hand, that’s why they spent “$700,000 for a 1,900-square foot, three-bedroom loft condo for her then-22-year-old daughter Meghan McCain” after she graduated from Columbia. Similarly, they know all about problems with inflation since they “increased their budget for household employees from $184,000 in 2006 to $273,000 in 2007, according to John McCain’s tax returns.”

I don’t really care if he married a rich woman. I backed a candidate in 2004 in a similar situation. I also don’t care how wealthy they are and while I have many reasons not to vote for John McCain, these are not among the reasons. However, for anyone who has any qualms about voting for Barack Obama because of claims that he is an elitist. there’s even stronger reasons not to vote for John McCain. He’s far more of an elitist, but without the understanding of Constitutional law that an elitist university professor like Obama has.

I’m heading out for an extra-long holiday weekend, so posting will be reduced for the next week. The hotel promises WiFi so I’m sure I will be posting, but generally I resort to quicker comments, links, and quotes of interest when traveling.

I haven’t decided yet whether I will post a SciFi Friday feature this weekend. I’m still in awe of the cliff hanger on Doctor Who at the end of The Stolen Earth but I’m also reluctant to say very much and spoil it for those who watch on The SciFi Channel rather than downloading the latest episode.

There’s been a lot of talk of Obama moving towards the center. Sometimes it only seems like the candidate is moving towards the center due to the differences between a primary and general election campaign. A candidate must attract their party’s base during the primaries while working to attract a wider range of voters during the general election. Ed Kilgore has three good points to consider regarding the perception of Obama moving towards the center:

First of all, a candidate doesn’t really have to “move” at all to create the perception of a different message and strategy once the primary season is over. The general election issue landscape is inevitably going to be different, for the simple reason that the candidate and partisan debate will be different. An example: Barack Obama spent a significant amount of time during the primaries arguing with Hillary Clinton about the relative utility of an individual mandate as part of any plan for universal health coverage. Nobody would expect that issue to matter much in a general election competition with John McCain, who opposes public-sector enabled universal health coverage altogether. Much more broadly, the Democratic nomination contest was in part “about” the various candidates’ applications of progressive principles to policy and political challenges, in detail. The general election is a contest between progressive and conservative agendas, and both candidates will naturally stress those aspects of their agendas that have the widest electoral appeals. That’s not a matter of “moving,” but simply of recontextualizing to a different audience and a different debate.

Second of all, as the TDS Roundtable on swing and base voters earlier this year illustrated, there’s plenty of disagreement about the definition and nature of “swing voters.” They don’t necessarily all reside in the ideological “center” of the electorate on every issue, and moreover, “base” voters don’t necessarily have inconsistent or antagonistic points of view from “swing voters.” The two things that are pretty hard to deny are that (1) undecided “very likely” voters are indeed a disproportionately important electoral prize because winning each of them produces two net votes, and (2) most successful campaigns in a competitive environment manage to energize the partisan base while expanding it into the ranks of independents and even the other party’s base. Huffington’s horror at swing-voter pandering, and her manifest contempt for swing voters themselves, probably reflects the fashionable but very dubious Lackoffian belief that swing voters are cognitively confused, perhaps even stupid or amoral people who can only be appealed to by an even more strongly expressed partisan “frame.”

Third of all, it amazes me that anyone should be surprised by Barack Obama’s willingness on occasion to stray from Democratic Party orthodoxy or from strict down-the-line partisanship. It has been an important part of his political persona from day one. And those who accuse him of cynicism for expressing heretical thoughts on FISA or gun control or the death penalty now are perhaps the real cynics, who somehow thought he didn’t really mean all his early talk about transpartisan politics or overcoming the stale debates of past decades.

The claims of moving towards the center must be considered individually as opposed to trying to come to a general conclusion. On FISA I do question whether Obama is making the right move, along with a tremendous number of his supporters. It at least says something about Obama that he allows so many supporters on his own campaign web site to criticize this position. Just try to imagine George Bush doing the same.

Obama’s view on faith based programs is a more acceptable compromise, considering that it is necessary for Democrats to reach voters who do not normally vote Democratic. Obama has made his consideration of separation of church and state clear in his speech (in contrast to some misleading news reports). Obama is likely to try to bridge the partisan gap by proposing programs which liberals normally do not support. Many liberals are apprehensive about this, often due to recalling the “triangulation” of the Clinton years. The difference is that when Obama proposes compromises he also sticks to core liberal principles, such as insisting that separation of church and state be resepcted in any faith based programs. I’m sure I will disagree with Obama on a number of points, but Ed is correct. The best course is to let Obama be Obama.

While many Clinton supporters are now backing Barack Obama, unfortunately there remain segments who were so deluded by the distortions of the Clinton campaign that they still believe their own fictitious talking points. Perhaps the worst example of a liberal blog which exudes hatred of Obama on a regular basis is the blog I left to form this blog–The Democratic Daily. They continue to distort Obama’s positions in order to portray him as someone who does not respect Democratic values, while they supported a candidate who is significantly to the right of Obama on these issues.

Yesterday they had an inaccurate post on Obama’s support for faith based institutions, repeating the claim which AP later corrected that Obama would let “religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decision. This was corrected later in the day which may or not be apparent to readers of that rambling post,  If they paid attention to Obama’s actual speech they would have found he said:

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

The post further distorts Obama’s views on religion, ignoring the fact that he has taken the strongest stance of any of the candidates on defending separation of church and state.

The pathetic thing about Clinton supporters is that while the criticize Obama for moving towards the center during a political campaign, they fail to realize that Hillary Clinton has been moving towards the right for several years in preparation for running.  While they criticize Obama for supporting faith based initiatives (with appropariate protections to respect separation of church and state) they ignore the fact that Hillary Clinton has been a supporter of faith based initiatves for quite a while.  Even worse, Clinton has been heavily influenced by the religious right for years. This has had a negative influence on her policy positions, including her support for laws against flag burning and her vendetta against video games.

This same anti-Obama meme is seen again today with Stuart O’Neill quoting from Taylor Marsh to support his attacks. He might as well quote from Ann Coulter. Nothing which either has to say about Obama should be taken very seriously or considered to have any factual basis. O’Neill writes, ” I was busy writing about Hillary Clinton and didn’t study the details of Obama’s positions. As I’ve said here many times, I think the guy is an empty shirt.”

He didn’t, by his own admission, study the detail of his positions and yet he has the gall to clasify Obama as an empty shirt. It is hard to justify such an assessment of someone when you have not paid attention to what they have been saying.

His latest post is based upon Obama’s support for the FISA compromise. While I disagree with Obama on this, it is rather unfair, as well as dishonest, to deny his support for liberal values, especially when supporting someone far to the right of him on civil liberties issues. Besides, Clinton has come under plenty of criticism on her own for her weak opposition to the FISA bill. It is also Clinton, and not Obama who supported the war, even if the same blog has attempted to obfuscate the facts on this issue. It is also Clinton who has repeatedly resorted to pandering to fear of terrorism to attempt to scare voters into supporting her. It is this mind set which Clinton promotes which has created the entire problem with FISA.

Criticism of Obama, from the left or the right, is fair game. I’ve criticized a couple of his positions myself (on FISA and same-sex marriage) in the past week. However to criticize a specific policy is one thing. To continue to run the same type of campaign of distortion which we’ve seen from the Clintonistas even after their leader is out of the race is another thing entirely. If they would actually make the effort to study what Obama actually believes they would find that he has been the strongest supporter of liberal values and civil liberties to run for president this year. Besides, if they are concerned about Obama’s inevitable move towards the center, just imagine what would have happened if the candidate was Hillary Clinton, who started out far to the right of Obama on these issues. Finding faults in Obama does not mean that the alternatives were any better.

Yesterday’s column by David Brooks illustrates why I both like and dislike his work. His column starts out making points similar to a recent post I wrote on the realignment between the parties, with an increasing number of educated and affluent voters now voting Democratic.  Brooks writes:

Political analysts now notice a gap between professionals and managers. Professionals, like lawyers and media types, tend to vote and give Democratic. Corporate managers tend to vote and give Republican. The former get their values from competitive universities and the media world; the latter get theirs from churches, management seminars and the country club.

The trends are pretty clear: rising economic sectors tend to favor Democrats while declining economic sectors are more likely to favor Republicans. The Democratic Party (not just Obama) has huge fund-raising advantages among people who work in electronics, communications, law and the catchall category of finance, insurance and real estate. Republicans have the advantage in agribusiness, oil and gas and transportation. Which set of sectors do you think are going to grow most quickly in this century’s service economy?

Initially I found some interesting material in his column, but he really goes downhill in the next paragraph:

Amazingly, Democrats have cultivated this donor base while trending populist on trade by forsaking much of the Clinton Third Way approach and by vowing to raise taxes on capital gains and the wealthy. If Obama’s tax plans go through, those affluent donors could wind up giving over 50 percent of their income to the federal government.

In terms of populism, it is notable that of the three major candidates this year, the two who ran populist campaigns, Clinton and Edwards lost while the candidate who is most market-oriented and influenced by Chicago school economists did win. Obama’s victory was a clear sign of the direction the Democratic Party has been moving for the last several years.

Even worse is the mischaracterization of Obama’s tax policies. Such scare tactics on his tax policies represent typical Republican attacks, similar to their old claims that Democrats will take away people’s guns and bibles. I didn’t bother to respond to this column yesterday as I’ve discussed Obama’s tax policies  recently (here and here). Obama’s tax policies are most likely designed to avoid scaring away the affluent new Democratic voters who Brooks discusses. Obama has been saying that those making up to $250,000 will not see an increase in taxes, including income taxes, capital gains taxes, and Social Security payroll taxes. It is primarily those in the top one tenth of one percent who will see an increase, primarily as they benefited the most from Bush’s tax cuts.

Jared Bernstein has commented further on this column:

According to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center’s analysis of Obama’s tax plan, the correct share for the richest 1 percent of households–those with income above $600,000–is 36 percent; for the for the richest 0.1 percent, above $2.9 million, the rate would be 39 percent. Note also that since these estimates include taxes remitted by corporations, the actual tax returns that these households fill out would find them paying less than 30 percent of their income in taxes. Even with Senator Obama’s proposal to raise Social Security taxes on those with earnings above $250,000, a proposal for which he has yet to specify a rate, tax liabilities of the affluent would still be far below 50 percent of their income.

It’s also worth noting that these tax rates for those at the top of the scale are about the same as those that prevailed under Bill Clinton’s presidency (average for the top 1 percent, 1993-2000: 35 percent), a period of strong and broadly shared economic growth.

John McCain’s flip-flops have become a common topic of discussion in the news media and blogosphere. Keith Olbermann mentioned several in the video above (transcript under the fold). Crooks and Liars followed up with links to back up a list of flip-flops (including a link to a previous post here):

Political reform, Immigration, Gay marriage, Abortion, Nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Military actions against rogue states, Negotiating with Kim Jong Il, Negotiating with Castro, Negotiating with terrorists (acceptable in 2002 when Powell went to Syria. In 2006, McCain said sooner or later we’ll talk to Hamas, not appropriate now), Unilateral action against suspected terrorists in Pakistan (Confused leadership with Obama, not with Bush) Warrantless wiretapping, Torturing Detainees, Indefinitely holding detainees, Iraq War, Tax cuts for the rich, Estate tax, Privatizing Social Security, Balanced budget, Windfall profits tax, Offshore drilling, Bush fundraisers, Jerry Falwell, Pastor John Hagee, MLK Jr. holiday, South Africa divestment, the confederate flag, and alternatives to evolution being taught at school

McCain has not only flip-flopped on policy, but has also flip-flopped on his admission that he doesn’t know much about economics. First Read reminds McCain of the many times he as admitted this.

Steve Benen has compiled a long list of flip-flops and discusses the topic today. He notes that the media is much less concerned about flip-flops when McCain is being accused of this than when John Kerry was accused of flip-flopping in 2004. Flip-flops need to be evaluated on their individual merit. Most of the flip-flops that Kerry was accused of were based upon Republicans distorting Kerry’s position and then claiming a flip-flop when his actual position did not match what they claimed it was. Often it is justifiable to change one’s mind, especially when conditions change or when new information is available. Politicians must consider what their constituents want and what legislation has a chance to pass, which can vary over time.

Steve also agrees that a flip-flop is not always bad, but is concerned of the manner in which McCain has changed his mind out of political expediency when running for president:

But therein lies the point — McCain was consistent on most of these issues, right up until he started running for president, at which point he conveniently abandoned literally dozens of positions he used to hold. The problem isn’t just the incessant flip-flops — though that’s part of it — it’s more about the shameless pandering and hollow convictions behind the incessant flip-flops. That the media still perceives McCain as some kind of “straight talker” who refuses to sway with the political winds makes this all the more glaring.

As Josh Marshall recently put it, “McCain is absolutely gung-ho and certain that he’s right about whatever his position and ‘principles’ are at the given moment. But they change repeatedly.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Josh Patashnik discusses a post by Tim Lee at The Plank which I discussed earlier this week. He also finds that the type of libertarianism described by Lee is very similar to contemporary liberalism. He writes:

As Matt points out, this sounds a lot like contemporary liberalism, which has gradually been shorn of its more statist elements. This, ultimately, is why I’m persuaded that the liberal-libertarian alliance Lindsey envisioned in his December 2006 TNR article is likely to come about in some form or another. You’re already starting to see quite a few young libertarian-leaning voters decide that the Democrats’ mild economic heresy is more palatable than the GOP’s more serious deviations from the small-government line in the realms of social and foreign policy.

What’s more, it’s quite possible that the trend might be accelerated if the Democrats find themselves controlling both Congress and the White House come January. One serious look at long-term budget projections will convince the Democrats that means-testing entitlements is the only way to make the numbers add up: You can keep sending checks to wealthy seniors or you can fund liberal priorities like universal health care for the working poor, but you can’t do both. If, after a few years of unified Democratic control of the federal government, you don’t see marginal tax rates reverting to their pre-Reagan levels, libertarians will be apt to decide they’ve won the battle and Lindsey’s prediction will be borne out. A social-safety net that’s genuinely Rawlsekian, even if it’s more generous than most libertarians would prefer, is something I’d wager they’ll be able to reconcile themselves to. (Of course, it’s also possible that we’ll get no means-testing of entitlements, a serious spending orgy, and massive tax hikes beyond anything currently being proposed by any prominent Democrat, which would obviously preclude a liberal-libertarian alliance. But I wouldn’t bet on it–even Democrats aren’t that suicidal.)

There was a bit of a scare based upon an erroneous AP report today. In January I posted on Obama’s plan to continue faith-based programs but noted how he also respected separation of church and state. AP got the story wrong today in reporting that ” Reaching out to religious voters, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is announcing plans to expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support their ability to hire and fire based on faith.” Subsequent report updated the wording to “some ability.”

Steve Benen reviewed Obama’s actual speech and found it to be different from the AP report:

“Now, make no mistake, as someone who used to teach constitutional law, I believe deeply in the separation of church and state, but I don’t believe this partnership will endanger that idea – so long as we follow a few basic principles. First, if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can’t discriminate against them – or against the people you hire – on the basis of their religion. Second, federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs. And we’ll also ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.”

Steve writes that “By all appearances, Obama’s vision is consistent with what Bush’s plan would have been, if Bush cared about constitutional law, the interests of taxpayers, the rights of families in need, and the integrity of religious institutions.” He quotes further from Obama’s speech:

“You see, while these groups are often made up of folks who’ve come together around a common faith, they’re usually working to help people of all faiths or of no faith at all. And they’re particularly well-placed to offer help. As I’ve said many times, I believe that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques.

“That’s why Washington needs to draw on them. The fact is, the challenges we face today – from saving our planet to ending poverty – are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.

“I’m not saying that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits. And I’m not saying that they’re somehow better at lifting people up. What I’m saying is that we all have to work together – Christian and Jew, Hindu and Muslim; believer and non-believer alike – to meet the challenges of the 21st century.”

Steve Benen has an amusing example of the dangers of relying on cut and paste. He notes that some right wing websites will use cut and paste to automatically change every mention of the Democratic Party to Democrat Party. The American Family Association’s OneNewsNow websitea utomatically changes gay to homosexual. Until they caught the error, a story that sprinter Tyson Gay won the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials became rather amusing after going through this automatic edit:

Tyson Homosexual easily won his semifinal for the 100 meters at the U.S. Olympic track and field trials and seemed to save something for the final later Sunday.

His wind-aided 9.85 seconds was a fairly cut-and-dry performance compared to what happened a day earlier. On Saturday, Homosexual misjudged the finish in his opening heat and had to scramble to finish fourth, then in his quarterfinal a couple of hours later, ran 9.77 to break the American record that had stood since 1999. […]

Homosexual didn’t get off to a particularly strong start in the first semifinal, but by the halfway mark he had established a comfortable lead. He slowed somewhat over the final 10 meters-nothing like the way-too-soon complete shutdown that almost cost him Saturday. Asked how he felt, Homosexual said: “A little fatigued.”

Television advertisers generally seek a young audience, and at times television networks have even canceled shows which have decent ratings if the viewership is older than they desire. They might have to rethink their long term plans. Variety reports that the median age for watching live television is 50. If DVR’s are included, this only drops the age by one year.

Most likely this is largely because younger viewers are no less tied to the networks when they watch television, and they use other media more often. This would include watching television shows on line as opposed to on television.

I wonder if this will force the networks to reconsider who their shows are aimed at. Will they continue to go after the young audience, which is paying less attention but who the advertisers want, or will they concentrate more on the types of people who are actually more likely to watch a network show?

Libertarianism comes in many flavors. There’s hard libertarianism which rarely allows for any government activity as well as quite a variety of people who lean towards libertarianism who hold various views as to when government action is appropriate. Libertarianism has often been associated with the right, and the Ron Paul movement has definitely shown that social conservatism (often accompanied by the racism and anti-Semitism which have often afflicted the far right) can take on a libertarian name.

With the growing authoritarianism of the Republican Party, the more interesting development of libertarianism has been increased alliance between libertarians and liberals. There has even been talk of a fusionist philosophy of liberaltarianism. This has largely come about as the issues which divide left and right have changed. Attitudes on social issues, civil liberties, and the Iraq war are for more likely to divide people between left or right. There does remain some remnants of leftist economic views among Democrats but for the most part the idea of a market economy has won. There is far less interest in big government programs, except in specific areas, and certainly little support for income redistribution among contemporary Democrats.

It is significant that of the three major Democratic candidates to run this year, the two who embraced populist economic views lost while the more pro-market Barack Obama, who has been heavily influenced by the University of Chicago, is the current nominee. Obama has even been referred to as a left-libertarian by some, and more recently Geogre Will described Obama’s philosophy as one of “libertarian paternalism.” David Friedman has recently written on why he prefers Obama to McCain.

Hard core libertarians will disagree and oppose Obama as well as the current trends in the Democratic Party. Other libertarians find reason to be enthusiastic about the direction the country is taking on both social and economic matters. In discussing The Age of Abundance,by Brink Lindsey, Tim Lee writes:

Over the last four decades, public attitudes have shifted dramatically rightward on economic issues (even with a sweeping Democratic victory this fall, it’s hard to imagine a return to the 1970s’ levels of taxes, regulations, unionization, or monetary expansion) and leftward on social issues (feminism, gay rights, and sexual openness have all made great strides). I think it’s pretty clear that the left has been gradually winning on social issues while the right has mostly won on economic issues. While neither side has been all that libertarian, the net effect has been to push things in a libertarian direction.

I also think it would be helpful if more libertarians talked about things in these terms. Too many libertarians seem to define libertarianism as a very specific and restrictive political program: as a laundry list of government programs to be abolished, or equivalently as a very short list of government programs that won’t be abolished. By that measure, libertarianism is nowhere close to successful. But if we define libertarianism more broadly as a set of general ideas and attitudes—pro-market, pro-tolerance, skeptical of authority—the last few decades look a lot better from a libertarian perspective. Few major government programs have been abolished, but the role of market in the economy has expanded dramatically, and partly as a consequence people are freer than they’ve ever been to live their lives as they seem fit without interference from those in authority.

The Age of Abundance was written from the perspective of a time when the conventional wisdom among libertarians was that Republicans were pro-market and preferable on economic issues. They also believed  Democrats were preferable on social issues but unacceptable due to being anti-market. In recent years Democrats have been far more market-oriented, even if many liberals wouldn’t use that designation (as Matthew Yglesias points out.) In contrast, the Republicans have increasingly been supporters of corporate welfare and redistribution of wealth to the top one tenth of one percent, embracing policies which have little resemblence to lasissez-faire capitalism. Defining libertarianism more broadly as Tim Lee does, there is a tremendous overlap with liberalism, with Lee being right in seeing the overal trend as moving in a more libertarian direction. While George Bush has tried going against such trends, his authoritarian big-government views have been widely repudiated, allowing the country to move in a more libertarian direction in coming years.

When Obama announced his decision to vote for the FISA compromise, I assumed that this was primarily a politically motivated decision. I also questioned if he was making the same mistake that other Democrats made when voting on the Iraq war. Similarly I’ve noted how Obama has taken the politically more cautious route of failing to back same-sex marriages, also wondering if taking a less than consistent viewpoint is really the best course. Glenn Greenwald has written a number of excellent posts on the FISA bill and today addresses the politics of moving towards the center on such issues:

The central problem is that if Democrats embrace the GOP framework of National Security — that “Strength” means what the GOP says it means — then that framework gets enforced and perpetuated, and it’s a framework within which Democrats can’t possibly win, because Republicans will always “out-Strength” Democrats within that framework. It’s only by challenging and disputing the underlying premises can Democrats change the way that “strength” and “weakness” are understood.

The Democrats had such a smashing victory in 2006 because — for the first time in a long time, and really despite themselves — there was a perception (rightly or wrongly) that they actually stood for something different than the GOP in National Security (an end to the War in Iraq). Drawing a clear distinction with the deeply unpopular GOP is how Democrats look strong. The advice that they should “move to the center” and copy Republicans is guaranteed to make them look weak — because it is weak. It’s the definition of weakness.

The most distinctive and potent — one could even say exciting — aspect of Obama’s campaign had been his aggressive refusal to accept GOP pieties on National Security, his insistence that the GOP would lose — and should lose — debates over who is “stronger” and more “patriotic” and who will keep us more safe. The widely-celebrated foreign policy memo written by Obama’s adviser, Samantha Power, heaped scorn on Washington’s national security “conventional wisdom,” emphasizing how weak and vulnerable it has made the U.S. When Obama took that approach, he appeared to be, and in fact was, resolute and unapologetic in defending his own views — the very attributes that define “strength.”

The advice he’s getting, and apparently beginning to follow, is now the opposite: that he should shed his prior beliefs in favor of the amorphous, fuzzy, conventional GOP-leaning Center, that he should cease to insist on a re-examination of National Security premises and instead live within the GOP framework. That’s likely to lead to many things, but a perception of strength isn’t one of them. One of the very few things in the universe with a worse track record than America’s dominant Foreign Policy Community is the central religious belief of the Democratic consultant class and Beltway punditry that Democrats, to be successful, must shed their own beliefs and “move to the Center.”

Moving to the center does give the impression of “flip-flopping” and does make a candidate look weaker. The more serious problem in the long run is that if Democratic candidates run away from liberal positions, how can they expect the voters to either understand these positions or to support them? Liberal Democrats take the positions they do on national security matters not because they are weak on national security but because they believe that their views are better for the long term security of the country. They also consider civil liberties considerations to be important. However if nobody has the courage to stand up and publicly defend their views on national security and civil liberties, this leaves the Republicans as the only ones presenting a consistent viewpoint. Worse, when Democrats fail to coherently articulate their positions, they leave Republican free to define them.

While I’ve expressed my disagreement with Obama on issues such as the FISA compromise I’ve also pulled my punches out of understanding for his political predicament. It is far from clear as to which course would be the best in terms of electability. Obama can make the point that the only way he can bring about any change is if he does get elected, even if this means presenting his views in a manner more acceptable to the majority of voters.

The Anonymous Liberal does make a strong point in Obama’s defense. It would be far easier for Obama to vote against the FISA bill if more Democrats were also taking the principled positon:

I agree with Glenn that there is no reason the Democratic party should, in the current climate, feel the need to align its security policies more closely with the current administration. Indeed, if the Democrats were to stand up and run in full-throated opposition to the current policies, they’d probably do quite well in November.

I’m not sure the same thing is true of individual Democrats, however, particularly those running for national office. For instance, while I’m not going to defend Obama’s capitulation on FISA, I think it nevertheless is true that he is in a very difficult position politically and that opposing the bill might well hurt him in November. But the reason it might hurt him has nothing to do with the substantive merits of the bill or public opinion on issues like FISA reform and telecom immunity. The reason it might hurt him is because of the symbolism of the vote. With over two thirds of the members of his own party prepared to vote in favor of the bill, he had no political cover. If he opposes the bill, the question posed to him by every reporter and debate moderator would be: if the bill was so bad, why did over 2/3rds of the members of your own party think it was necessary to keep America safe?

This certainly could be a problem for Obama. Already we hear claims that Obama is the most liberal member of the Senate, often based upon a misleading survey from The National Journal. Many voters are now open to voting Democratic who have not done so in the past, but they might not vote for one who is characterized as the most extreme, along as being weak on national security.

There are strong arguments for Obama to move towards the center but we also must consider Obama’s strenghts as an orator. We now have a unique situation in which people are listening to the message from Democrats in larger numbers than we have seen for decades. This is the perfect moment for Obama to be taking the lead and use his oratory skills to convince the voters of the validity of his positions. Rather than go by the polls and by prevalent beliefs spread by Republicans which many are rejectilng, this is a time in which Obama can create a new majority by explaining his beliefs and convincing people that he is right. Voters who are overwhelmingly rejecting the Republicans are open to new ideas, but only if Democrats have the courage to express them.

I’ve often commented on the realignment between the parties, with the division now being more upon social issues and Iraq as opposed to economic issues. Republican attempts to scare people away from voting Democratic based upon claims that they would tax all their money have become less successful than claims in certain areas that Democrats would take away their guns and bibles. As a consequence, a growing number of more affluent and more educated voters are voting Democratic while Republicans seek the votes of more working class and socially conservative voters. In this respect the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination was also a battle between the party’s future and the party’s past.

The Washington Post looks at the changes in the Virginias and finds similar trends. I would suggest reading the entire article for context, but I will pull out quotes which simply describe the changes in who is voting for each party:

As the gap grows between places that are prospering and those that are not, Democrats are strengthening their hold in major metropolitan areas, particularly in places faring well in the technology-driven economy.

In 1976, Republican Gerald R. Ford won 10 of the 12 states with the highest per-capita income but lost the election; in 2004, John F. Kerry did the same for the Democrats.

Republicans, meanwhile, are consolidating their hold in rural areas and small cities, while making inroads in struggling Appalachian and Rust Belt regions that were a core of the Democratic base.

The trend generally bodes well for Democrats. Major metro areas are growing faster than the country as a whole, the party’s strength with young voters promises a lasting edge, and well-off, highly educated urban voters are valuable campaign contributors in the Internet age.

The party that fought for the little guy against the party of the wealthy has, while still representing racial minorities, increasingly become defined by the metropolitan middle and upper-middle class.

By pressing issues such as gun rights and same-sex marriage, Republicans tightened their grip on the South and snared such states as West Virginia, but lost many business-minded voters and alienated areas such as Fairfax County, where one in seven Virginians live.

The Bush presidency has widened the gap, as many suburban voters deserted the Republican Party in the 2006 congressional elections.

But the biracial senator from Illinois epitomizes the new Democratic coalition, with his years living abroad and in big cities, his intellectualism and his urbane flair, and his campaign’s lofty rhetoric and Internet savvy.

McCain, 71, lacks Bush’s ties with evangelical Christians, yet the Republican from Arizona still embodies a more traditional America, with his wartime heroism, his mantra of service over individualism and his admittedly limited technological literacy.

“Democratic areas are sopping up people with BA degrees; Republican areas are sopping up white people without degrees. Church membership is declining in Democratic areas and increasing in red counties,” said Bill Bishop, author of “The Big Sort.”

Overall, the most wealthy are still more likely to vote for GOP candidates, particularly in red states, where it is the rich, not the working class, who are most reliably Republican. The split is more evident in education and vocation, with professionals and voters with post-graduate degrees trending Democratic.

Affluent suburbs that were once solidly Republican have edged toward a split or turned Democratic, threatening to put big states out of the GOP’s reach for good: Bergen County, N.J., and New York’s Long Island; the “collar” counties outside Chicago; Montgomery and Bucks counties outside Philadelphia.

Meanwhile, Republicans have made gains in the Democrats’ New Deal base — places such as West Virginia, western Pennsylvania and eastern Ohio.

In West Virginia, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, the only Republican in the state’s congressional delegation, said it was simple: As national Democrats focused on a cosmopolitan constituency, her party made clear that it understood West Virginia’s culture

Keith Thompson’s father was a cabbie at the station, and his father-in-law was a train inspector, but Thompson, 52, works in Morgantown, 25 miles away, delivering uniforms to coal miners and car mechanics. He has voted Republican for years, fed up with West Virginia Democrats who he thinks have crippled the state with taxes, regulation and welfare, and national Democrats who he thinks want to take away his semiautomatic rifles.

For Whitehair, the highway worker, the turning point in 2000 was the Democrats’ fight to save the northern spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest. He will vote Republican again because McCain was a Vietnam POW. Also, he “heard Obama was a Muslim” — a false rumor.

There are common threads throughout the various quotes I’ve taken from the article. The more educated and affluent voters are voting Democratic, with the exception of the most wealthy. This is hardly surprising considering how the tax policies of both Bush and McCain primarily benefit the upper one tenth of one percent. Both Kerry and Obama have made sure their tax policies do not adversely affect those making up to $250,000 per year, recognizing that this is a growing Democratic constituency.

The Republicans are left with a strange coalition, which explains why the party is rapidly losing power. As there are very few votes among the upper one tenth of one percent economically, they are forced to turn to others for actual votes. With their policies being those of past ages, they are primarily able to attract the votes of those who are not comfortable living in the twenty-first century. They receive the votes of the uneducated and those who, for various reasons, are susceptible to their false claims. These include the religious right and those who responded to the 9/11 terrorist attack based upon fear without rational thought.

It might make sense from an economic point of view for those in the top one tenth of one percent to vote Republican. Beyond that they receive votes from those who can be deceived or suffer from a number of delusions. People who vote Republican generally believe several of these claims commonly made by the right:

• They believe Saddam had weapons of mass destruction which represented a threat to the United States and was working with al Qaeda.
• They believe going to war in Iraq was beneficial to our national security when in reality the war has strengthened al Qaeda and Iran while weakening the United States.
• They believe Democrats will take away everyone’s guns, and bibles.
• They believe Obama is a Muslim.
• They deny our heritage of separation of church and state and consider legislating their religious views to be a proper role of government.
• They both believe in creationism as a valid alternative to evolution and believe it should be taught in science classes.
• They believe abortion is “baby killing,” failing to either understand the distinction or consider the rights of an individual to control their own body.
• They believe science can be ignored when it contradicts their personal beliefs or preferences, from believing in creationism to denying the scientific consensus on global warming.

Many of these beliefs simply stem from limited education, or require limited education to fall for, explaining the demographic changes. Others stem from philosophical views which make even some well educated individuals receptive to Republican rhetoric. Rather than representing a coherent philosophy, conservatism as practiced by the Republican Party has become primarily a reaction against the modern era and a reaction against reality. The more they rely on such beliefs, the more the Republican Party becomes an unacceptable choice among the educated, leading to the demographic changes described in this article.