Breaking: Media abdicates responsibility for Iraq War coverage!

The lede is buried in today's NYT scoop on the cozy relationship between media military analysts and the Pentagon:

Some networks publish biographies on their Web sites that describe their analysts’ military backgrounds and, in some cases, give at least limited information about their business ties. But many analysts also said the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Mr. Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006.

“The worst conflict of interest was no interest.”

Gee, I can't imagine why the Times would ignore the most significant aspect of the story: that the network/cable news channels' handling of the massive misinformation campaign waged by the Pentagon was at best, negligent and at worst, deceptive. Could it be because the liberal media (including the Times itself, which published at least nine op-eds by "military analysts") comes off as either willfully blind or really, really stupid? No doubt the media had an interest in being able to put on "experts" with access to internal Pentagon goings-on; but to not critically examine what those analysts were saying--or even notice that they were all repeating the same Administration talking points--isn't exactly journalism, is it? The self-righteous tone of the article--we should be outraged that the Bushies would try to control messaging about the war??--is sort of hilarious when you think about how the most incompetent presidential administration in history was so easily able to make the media its bitch.

Opting out

Linda Hirschman continues throwing bombs at women who quit their day jobs in order to raise the kids/support the careers of their ambitious husbands. It does feel a little like twisting the knife in poor Silda Spitzer (also, why does Hirschman keep cattily calling her a "blond upper East Side mother" when she's clearly not blond??), but it also re-raises the old critique of well-educated, smart, successful career women who opt out of the working world to have a family. I'm secretly sympathetic to the claim that it's bad for women when opt-out "revolutionaries" exercise the "choice" to stop working and start breeding, for a few reasons: it makes it seem like working and raising kids have to be mutually exclusive if you're going to do a good job at either (a terrible message to send your daughters); it reinforces to employers that it's stupid to invest lots of money in training females when there's a guy available for the same job who's not going to leave the workforce in three years; and it absolves men from sharing family responsibilities by forcing them to be primary breadwinners.

But I also wonder if Hirschman's argument isn't a generational/class thing that doesn't apply in such force to the middle-class, well-educated group of young professionals I'm familiar with. This group was raised with more of an ethos to do what they want for self-fulfillment as opposed to supporting a family; as a result, the men aren't more likely to have well-paying jobs (or greater earning potential) than the women. And that means that more subtle planning has to go in to the calculation to have a family--plans that include more shared responsibilities and compromise in terms of who works and who stays home that have more to do with the stage of career each spouse is in than with whether they are male or female.

The Politics of Hope as unilateral disarmament

I think that's the thrust of the Clinton campaign's implicit (or maybe explicit) argument--that the Republicans aren't going to play nice just because Obama has galvanized a movement to reinvent politics, and that you need someone as dirty as they (the Clintons) are to advance a progressive agenda. That's what bitter partisans like Paul Krugman are on about too. You kind of have to admire someone who is able to capitalize on Americans' cynicism about the political process so effectively that she's been able to convince people that liberal ideals can only be achieved through a knife fight.

Thing is, for process-obsessives like me, Obama's promise of a better, cleaner, more transparent, more deliberative process of governance is pretty much the only reason to vote Democratic. I don't really want Bush-style tactics in the service of hugely problematic policies like universal health care. If my taxes are going to go up, I'd at least like to know that it's for a policy that comes out of a good process--one that balances the concerns and interests of people on both sides of the aisle. I don't want a policy that comes out of a process that looks anything like the way the Clinton campaign has been run--i.e., through secrecy, backstabbing, a total lack of discipline and, ultimately, reliance on shady and anti-democratic tactics.

I mean, if Clinton wins, it's a victory for the school of Rove and an affirmation of the Bush years, because she's basically promising us the same old crap, but with a higher price tag. She's repudiating the take-away message from her husband's years in power, which was, "a coherent political philosophy works." Until I see some evidence that she stands for more than just petty partisanship on behalf of short-sighted Great Society-style policies, I think I'm reserving my general election vote if she wins the nomination...

Why carbon taxes won't work

This is a well-reasoned argument for why carbon taxes aren't a feasible option for decreasing carbon emissions, despite seemingly widespread consensus among economists that taxes are better than a cap-and-trade system. Among its points:

1) The politics of implementing a carbon tax will require huge, economy-distorting compromises that will limit its effectiveness;

2) We have no clue what the optimal price is;

3) A carbon tax designed for the expected case can safely be avoided for decades, while a carbon tax high enough to ameliorate a low-odds disaster scenario would be insanely expensive. I had to read this one a few extra times to understand it, but I think the argument is that it is cheaper and more effective to invest in alternative technologies for the next 40 years than to implement a gradual tax over that time that probably wouldn't do much and would cost a lot. The problem, of course, is that this doesn't account for the costs of transition at that point. Also, if you believe that the private sector is best place for these new technologies to be developed, then you have to give them an incentive to develop them, for example by making it more expensive to stick with the status quo.

I suppose you could also just give the money directly to the private sector to do the research. Maybe by taking away direct and indirect subsidies for emissions-producing practices? (Though that, again, raises prices for consumers.) Regardless, it's a thought-provoking way to think about how the current proposals for tackling global warming aren't necessarily compatible with political or economic reality.

Side thought: I wonder if our broken patent system is ready to deal with the prospect of alternative energy technologies... will the AET industry fall more on the side of biotech (pushing for stronger patent protections) or Silicon Valley tech (pushing for weaker patent protections)?

Oh, snap!

You have to love the Clinton campaign for managing to pull Obama's people down to their level, high-minded language about "a different kind of politics" nonwithstanding. In response to the absurd plagiarism charges that the Clinton campaign aired Monday in a conference call with reporters, Obama campaign manager David Axelrod hilariously insulted Clinton communications director Howard Wolfson:

Without naming him, Axelrod then took a shot at Wolfson: "Our buddy in the ugly sweater will show up on your show and try to make this and other things an issue. Anything they can grab on to now."

Though really, he's not wrong.

The Republican Nader

No, I don't specifically have one in mind, but doesn't it seem like the time is ripe for one to appear? This TNR article cataloguing the many conservative heresies of John McCain over the years should remind us of why most Republicans hate him so much. Add that to statements by Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter about supporting the Democrat if McCain gets the nomination, not to mention the fact that Huckabee (Huckabee!!) is managing to still win primaries, and you have to wonder whether there aren't some conservative wingnuts out there contemplating a spoiler third-party run. It wouldn't be hard to argue to disgruntled conservatives that there is no difference between McCain and the Democrats, and that electing either one will have the effect of destroying core Republican values and killing the party.

A nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Pat Buchanan?

P.S. Here is a great satirical version of the Obama "Yes We Can" video featuring McCain.

Obama and transcending race--where are the Asians and Hispanics?

As an Obama supporter, I am of course excited by his strong showing tonight and optimistic that his message is resonating more widely than I thought possible. As a California voter from San Jose, I was sort of shocked at a stat that I saw on CNN that showed that he had lost to Clinton by something like 30 points among Hispanics, and really shocked at the stat that he had lost to her by over 50 points to Asian-Americans. Of course we'd been hearing about how he was going to lose the Hispanic vote for ages, but why no word about Asians? They are truly the lost demographic, despite recent increases in their numbers and political clout.

Watching his speech from Chicago tonight, this issue really struck me--Obama speaks about transcending race, but only makes reference to black-white relations: "This isn't about black children, this isn't about white children, it's about all children" etc. This is not a message that resonates with Hispanic and Asian voters, especially politically-organized Hispanic and Asian voters who feel entitled to be part of a larger dialogue about race in America. For these groups, issues like immigration and affirmative action are much more complex than the black-white dichotomy that the Obama campaign has managed to "transcend." (See, for example, the tension between Hispanics and blacks on illegal immigration and wage effects, or the fact that most Asian-American political organizations have come out strongly against affirmative action because Asians are disproportionately hurt by it.) If Obama is truly going to be the post-racial president, he must recognize that and reach out to these groups, rather than snubbing them. The Clintons get it, and are able to capitalize on (irresponsible speculation alert) both groups' natural cultural conservatism and suspicion of "revolutionary" talk.

Of course, the Obama campaign may have made the calculation that none of this matters (at least now on) because California is reliably blue and will swing for whoever the Democratic nominee is regardless. But I'm not so sure this truism holds where the Republican nominee is McCain--the face of comprehensive immigration reform and a conservative that liberals can get behind. If the 2008 election is going to be a fight for independents and moderates, then Asians and Hispanics are groups that Obama absolutely needs to win; and they are groups he probably shouldn't continue taking for granted.