Romney's "Sister Souljah" moment?

In 1992, Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton famously launched an attack against the rapper Sister Souljah.  The remarks were surprising at the time--as they offended several key Democratic constituencies--but they served their purpose:  Clinton was able to win significant support from moderates and conservative Democrats, who had abandoned the Democratic Party in the prior three election cycles, and defeat George H. W. Bush that November. 

Given that the current election cycle bears some resemblance to 1992--a poorly-performing economy, an incumbent considered to be vulnerable, and an opposition party nominee who is presently having trouble with moderate voters, particularly in swing states, some commentators have called for Mitt Romney to produce a "Sister Souljah moment" of his own; a rebuke to his party's base that makes him attractive to swing voters.

Recently, the Romney campaign did do indeed something which has infuriated his base:  a seeming endorsement of RomneyCare, in response to an Obama ad aimed directly at Romney's groin.  In the ad, a worker laid off from a Bain Capital-owned firm, discusses his wife's subsequent death and the likely role that loss of health insurance may have played.  While the ad's factual case may not be very strong (the wife died many years after the husband lost his job), Romney's response was to suggest that if they had lived in Massachusetts and had access to the healthcare system there (which Romney is credited as the architect of), she might still be alive.

This thoroughly infuriated conservatives.  While not quite a Souljah-esque rebuke of a GOP sacred cow--for one thing, the comments came from a Romney spokesperson and not from the candidate himself--the GOP's right wing is outraged.  Erick Erickson (a grudging, holding-his-nose Romney supporter only supports the former governor because he's not Obama) tweeted that this might cost Romney the election, and suggested that the nominee needs to be "housebroken".  Were Romney, though, to himself endorse his signature gubernatorial initiative, it would be the first significant time since winning the GOP nomination, that he has challenged party orthodoxy on a significant issue.

If he decided to go with this, would it work?  Several issues suggest not.

• The GOP hasn't spent enough time in the wilderness to accept such a rebuke.  When Clinton made his remarks, the Democrats had only occupied the White House for one term out of the past six, and were desperate for an electoral victory.  The party was simply tired of losing, and ready to abandon its ideological rigidity.  (Were Jimmy Carter to have said something similar in 1980, he would likely not have survived the primaries).  There's little evidence that the GOP has reached "peak wingnut"; the Republican party and the conservative intellectual machinery is still in the business of purging moderates and electing extremists.  
• While Clinton himself had a reputation as a flip-flopper during the election (he was often derisively referred to as "pander bear" during the campaign); he did not have anywhere near the political baggage that Romney did.  It may well be the case that moderate voters simply conclude that this is yet another strategic tack from the presumptive GOP nominee, and not a serious statement of principle on an issue of key importance.
• The specific issue of healthcare reform doesn't give Romney much electoral benefit--as a more robust version of the program is already law, and championed by his oopponent.

In prior instances where Romney has said things that have offended conservatives and produced outrage among the right-wing punditocracy, these have been swiftly walked back.  It's possible that Romney will do the same with this remark--disavowing it as an unwise remark from a campaign staffer.  For this to have any Sister Souljah potential, Romney will have to defend the position himself, and openly defy conservatives who remain skeptical about his political bona fides.

And the next time Romney stands up to Rush Limbaugh et al, will be the first.

But if he doesn't do it during the campaign, he'll probably never get the chance to do it from the Oval Office.

Hyperinflation?

It's always amusing to hear scolds and cranks on the political right-wing (and I include libertarians here, as this article focuses on economic issues) warning about the possibility of US hyperinflation.  If I had a dollar for every time someone compared the United States to Weimar Germany or post-WWII Hungary or various African kleptocracies--I'd have enough cash to inflate the currency myself.  While the US uses fiat money, it ought to be obvious to anyone that the Fed is strictly under the thumb of banking interests, and that despite persistent 8% unemployment, isn't likely to do a damn thing about it--least of all, go off and print tens of trillions of dollars (and it would take an expansion that large in the money supply to devalue the currency sufficiently to trigger hyperinflation--generally defined as a halving of the value of a currency each month, or worse).  The size of the national debt is of some concern, but at present it is at a level manageable by current GDP.

Hyperinflation generally occurs when there's a very large change in the value of the money supply (money stock, bank deposits, etc) compared to the productive value of a country.  The biggest cause of hyperinflation is warfare and its aftermath, where massive amounts of capital are diverted to fund the war machine.  This is especially true for civil war and/or invasion--where productive assets are destroyed, civil society is disrupted, taxation becomes difficult, and/or punitive reparations are imposed on the loser of a conflict.  The other main cause of hyperinflation is ineffective government running unproductive economies (often also coupled with warfare).  Neither condition presently applies here--while the US is presently engaged in far too many foreign misadventures for my taste, all of the conflict is occurring abroad; US factories are not being bombed and the government remains able to finance its activities through taxation or debt.  And the country still has adequate infrastructure, productive farms and factories, and other ways of generating wealth.

So--could hyperinflation happen here?  The two times the US has come closest were during the Revolutionary and Civil wars.  The US was not yet a country at the time the colonists revolting against Great Britain were issuing "continentals" to finance the war, which quickly became worthless.  No other episode--including the infamous "stagflation" of the 1970s, come close--inflation then was on the order of 10% per year, not 50% per month.  As noted in the opening paragraph, the Fed seems to be in no mood to further expand the money supply, and US debt still is regarded as a highly safe investment.

If it does happen, it won't be in the way the tinfoil hats on the right predict.  My bigger concern would be a significant drop in the productive capacity of the country--caused by a continuing failure to invest in the infrastructure and human resources needed to maintain a first-world economy.   A first world economy requires quality roads and ports for movement of people and goods, an educated populace, a strong financial system, infrastructure for things like electricity, water, sewerage, and telecommunications, and a transparent and honest political and judicial system.  And recently, we have been neglecting all of these, often on the grounds that they are too expensive to maintain.  However, there remains ample money to fund a vast war machine for engaging in dubious adventures abroad.

If hyperinflation occurs here, it won't because the Fed fires up the printing press.  It will occur here because our infrastructure will become so neglected that it fails to function.  Our bridges will fall into rivers; our utility systems will become unreliable.  Our factories, many of which are shuttered due to cheaper labor (and better supply chains) available elsewhere, will become obsolete and no longer capable of high-level production.  Our children, deprived of a quality education, will not be qualified for any tasks other than physical labor.  Our politicians will become more bought, and our culture politics more poisonous.  And eventually, the GDP will plummet as the productive capacity of the land goes down, and all those dollars people have will correspondingly decline in value.

If hyperinflation occurs here, it won't be because of the numerator in the money/wealth ratio gets too high, it will be because the denominator gets too low. And that's actually the common denominator in cases of hyperinflation--a country that, for whatever reason, is poor.  Usually this occurs in a country that has never been otherwise, or which sees its wealth utterly destroyed due to catastrophe or sabotage.  It would be a rare thing indeed for it to happen due to simple neglect.

More Gilbert and Sullivan--this time for the President

When the GOP's not causing unemployment (unemployment)
And trying to drown the baby in the tub (in the tub)
On the golf course Speaker Boehner gives enjoyment (gives enjoyment)
Though he thinks that I should carry 'round his clubs (round his clubs)

Our feelings we with difficulty smother (-culty smother)
When polliticary duty's to be done (to be done)
Ah take one consideration with another (with another)
A president's lot is not a happy one.

Ahhh, when politicary duty's to be done, to be done,
A president's lot is not a happy one.

When the press corps is not rummaging through my laundry (through my laundry)
And seeking soiled linens I may got (I may got)
At parties they're quite charming, what a quandry (what a quandry)
Holding forth on Edmund Burke and Oakeshott (Oakeshott)

When the banker's finished robbing your grandmother (your grandmother) He loves to see the Yankees score a run (score a run)
Ah, take one consideration with another (with another)
A president's lot is not a happy one.

Ahhh, when politicary duty's to be done, to be done,
A president's lot is not a happy one.

Honest politician refuses to kiss ugly baby

Sabine Parish, LA (AP)

A candidate for the Louisiana House of Representatives caused a minor stir today when he refused to kiss a baby offered by a supporter at a political rally, saying that the child was too ugly.

Edwin G. Beauregard III, a Republican running for the legislature's seventh district who has developed a widespread representation among constituents for honesty, was gladhanding supporters in the town of Many when Blanche Johnson, a local housewife, handed him her 4 month-old son Bo Jr, for the traditional political ritual of receiving a kiss from the candidate.  Beauregard astonished the crowd when he took one look at the child, audibly shouted "My Lord", and handed the infant back to his shocked mother.  Visibly shaken, the rally was ended soon after, and the candidate canceled the remaining events on his schedule that day.

Asked about the event at a press conference the next day, Mr. Beauregard told an assembled group of reporters that "I'm sorry, folks, but I jes' cannot tell a lie.  Dat dar baby was uglier'n an alligator.  Now I done grew up in da bayou, and I seen lots of gators in my time--done killed a bunch of'm, too.  While de chil' wasn't uglier dan de ugliest gator I ever saw, he was definitely uglier dan de prettiest one.  I'm sorry if I offended da lady--she seems like a nice woman an' all, but I nearly fainted right dere on de spot when I saw what was inside dat cute lil' outfit.  Dis may cos' me de election dis November, but Lord al-mighty, dat kid was ug-LY!"

When reached for comment, Mrs. Johnson surprisingly defended the candidate, indicating that she still plans to vote for Mr. Beauregard.  "I know that little Bo. Jr ain't 'xactly the cutest thing in the world.  He kinda looks like his father, if y'all wanna know the truth.  But he's a gift from th' Lord, and pretty or not, he's our son and we love him with all our hearts.  I feel bless'd to have him, jes' like I feel bless'd to have an honest politician like Ed Beauregard runnin' for th' Legislature."

Mr. Beauregard's opponent, the Democratic incumbent Jefferson Babineaux, blasted the Republican, calling it an outrage that he would treat a child so cruelly.  "It's one thing t' lie 'bout your background, or what you plan to do when you get 'lected to office.  But to tell a poor woman that her child is ugly?  That has t'be the mos' despicable thing I ever heard of--and tell yew what, I heard a lot down in Baton Rouge, and I heard a lot more durin' my time at Angola."  Mr. Babineaux, who's current term in office has been marked by scandal, previously served time in the Louisiana State Penitentiary for corruption after a bribery conviction related to a prior stint in the state Senate.  He has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence in the scandal to this day, and despite the conviction and jail sentence, won election to the Legislature in 2008.

A spokesman for Mr. Beauregard's campaign indicated that the candidate would not change how he conducts political events in the future.  "Mr. Beauregard has been in politics for over twenty years.  This is the first time, that I can recall, that he has encountered a baby that was too ugly to kiss.  State has a better chance of losin' a football game to Vanderbilt than this does of ever happenin' again."

The health-care play by play I'd love to hear

If politics is football, here's the play-by-play I'd love to here.

"What a ballgame, folks!  We've had several lead changes in the fourth quarter, and now the Elephants have just called time.  They have the ball, fourth-and-goal on the Donkeys' three yard line.  Down by five.  Only seconds left on the clock.  They need a touchdown here, or it's all over."

"That's right, Bob.  The Elephants  were leading through most of the first half, when the Donkey's star runningback Kennedy got knocked out of the game.  Just before halftime, it was third-and-long, deep in Donkey territory, and it looked like the lead would hold.  But then coach Obama called a reconciliation play, which caught the Elephant defense COMPLETELY off guard, and the Donkeys were able to score on the final play of the half to take a small lead into the locker room".

"But whatever coach Boehner said to the Elephants in the locker room, it must have worked.  In the second half, the Donkeys haven't been able to move the ball at all against this stout Elephant defense.   While the elephants haven't scored either, they have slowly been moving the chains downfield, and are knocking on the door with seconds to go."

"The Donkey defense looks demoralized.  The elephants have their unstoppable fullback, Roberts on the field.  I was listening into the Elephant huddle, and Coach Boehner was telling his players that there would be no spiking of the ball if they score."

"I tell you what.  If the Elephants win this, it may finally justify all the money they spent on their new quarterback Romney.  Many fans of the team don't like him, mainly because he used to play for New England.  He's had to spend lots of time winning these fans over.  But if he can pull this off, he and the Elephants may just go all the way this year."

"If the Elephants pull this off, we may be looking at a dynasty."

"Back to the action.  The teams are at the line of scrimmage, Romney under center.  Donkey's loaded up to stop the run.  Here's the handoff from Scalia, he gives it to Roberts up the middle...."

"FUMBLE! He fumbled the ball!  There's bedlam on the turf!  OH MY GOD, Ginsburg scooped up it up and is running the other way!  They're not going to catch her!  Fifty!  Forty!  Thirty!  Twenty! Ten...  TOUCHDOWN!  The horn sounds!  And the game is OVER!   It's all over!"

"Incredible.  Can you believe THAT?  On the most important drive of the game, Elephant fullback John Roberts--the man known to football fans 'round the country as the Chief Justice, and the centerpiece of the team's offense--DROPS THE BALL!  And then Ginsburg--the oldest player on the field, she turns EIGHTY next year--outran everybody for a touchdown at the other end!"

"She's pretty spry for someone of her age, you gotta admit!

"Incredible.  Just amazing.  The Donkey's on the sideline just dumped a bucket of Gatorade on Coach Obama's head!  Many of the Elephant's fans are throwing garbage on the turf, and some of them are shouting obscenities at an obviously dejected Roberts.  Scalia and Ginsburg are shoving each other at mid-field.  And look at that--one of the Donkey players, Gaspard, I think it is, is taunting the Elephants on the field.  That would be worth fifteen yards, but the horn's already sounded!"

"Amazing.  We'll be back for the post-game reactions, right after this."

Occupy Tea Party?

In his New York Times column this morning, Ross Douthat noted the apparent demise of Americans Elect, the group that was trying to nominate a third-party centrist candidate to run in the middle, between President Obama and Mitt Romey.  While Ross neglects to mention that much of the motivation behind Americans Elect was personal dislike of the President (quite a few of its sponsors are disaffected Hillary supporters who haven't gotten over 2008), he's correct to note that there really isn't much room in the center for a viable third party.  The Democrats, in particular, are still accommodating to centrists.  Perhaps if the GOP were to continue down their extremist path, and the Democrats were to revert to their 1970s selves, a centrist third party would be viable, but that's not the conditions today.

Ross wondered aloud what a viable third party would look like.  To be viable, a third party would need to appeal to a large number of disaffected Americans--ideologically-defined parties like the Libertarians are unlikely to grow unless they can convince people that they offer solutions to problem.  Ross considered a fusion of Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street populism, which eerily reflected this Robert Reich article. (written prior to the rise of Occupy Wall Street).

What would a modern-day populist party look like, were it to come to exist?  The Tea Party and OWS have quite a few things in common:

• Born of economic upheaval
• Distrustful of economic elites, although there is some disagreement as to who they are.  Neither group is terribly fond of Wall Street.  OTOH, the Tea Party strongly dislikes organized labor (particularly public employee unions, whom it regards a yet another rent-seeking special interest) whereas OWS holds a less favorable view of industrialists and entrepreneurs.
• Likewise distrustful of the political establishment, believing that it is carrying water for the above-mentioned economic elites, and ignoring the concerns of the common man; both groups tend to believe that government writ large has been influenced by systemic corruption, and that the elites in both political parties are no good.
• Both movements are skeptical of current foreign policy.  OWS is generally staunchly anti-war.  Some Tea Partiers promote neoconservative foreign policy and/or seek to use the US military to advance religious goals (in particular, waging war against the Muslim world); but this is one of the biggest areas of disagreement between parts of the Tea Party and the GOP establishment; many Tea Partiers are as sick of warfare as liberals are.  Ron Paul is every bit as pacifist as anyone on the political left.

On the other hand, there are obvious cultural and political differences.

• The Tea Party is fundamentally a rural movement--and highly skeptical of urban living--whereas OWS is fundamentally an urban one.  I consider this to be one of the biggest differences, one that trumps many of the other cultural differences between the two movements.    
• The Tea Party also is more fundamentally, at this point, a cultural movement than an economic one; much of its focus is on cultural battles.  When the Tea Party talks about economics, many speakers advocate doctrinaire GOP policies, or a purified version thereof purged of (perceived) policy concessions to liberals.  (The disaster that was the Bush Administration is widely blamed on W being insufficiently conservative).  There are some staunch social conservatives (Mike Huckabee, Patrick J. Buchanan, and Rick Santorum are notable examples) who have been known to make populist economic arguments, but none of these have seriously challenged Republican orthodoxy on economics.  And a few on the right advocate reactionary economic policies such as the abandonment of central banking or fiat money.  OWS, on the other hand, is primarily an economic protest movement.
• The Tea Party is strongly anti-immigrant, and is also strongly influenced by fundamentalist Christianity in most places (this influence is present among its more Libertarian members--the Pauls, for example-- even if the latter don't consider such matters to be legislative priorities).  A significant fraction of the Tea Party movement is racist--excluding a few outliers like Herman Cain, it's a mostly white movement.  Many important goals of the Tea Party are non-economic goals promoted by religious conservatives--opposing abortion and gay rights, for instance.  OWS is far more culturally and racially diverse, and is in many ways a counterculture movement.   It frequently advocates socially libertarian goals, such as drug legalization and continuing deregulation of sex. 
• Frequent broadsides about urban elites and Wall Street notwithstanding, the Tea Party spends much of its time railing about the underclass and about the welfare state; whereas OWS directs the bulk of its scorn upwards.  Many Tea Party supporters are working-class whites who are finding themselves descending the economic ladder, and who have long defined themselves as being better than those at the bottom.  Many OWS supporters are already at the bottom.

Given all of that, could a fusion of the OWS and the Tea Party arise?

It's not likely to happen this election cycle.  Much as liberals in 2004 rallied around John Kerry as the party's nominee, eager to vote against an incumbent they despised, conservatives of all stripes have coalesced around another Massachusetts politician.  Even though many don't like Mitt Romney, the loathe Barack Obama, and that's good enough.  But what if Romney loses?

There will then be quite a bit more finger-pointing within the GOP; and those who argue that Republicans lost in 2008 because they weren't conservative enough will be in a strong position.  (On the other hands, if the GOP loses Richard Lugar's seat in Indiana, and fails to pick up the Nebraska seat being vacated by Ben Nelson, the establishment may have a good response).  At that point, a formal schism might be more of a reality.

But here's where it gets interesting.  The Tea Party, in many ways, controls the GOP.  They aren't the primary money-men, but many of the party's funding sources are perfectly happy backing Tea Party candidates.  In short, they already have a political party, which is being remade in its image.  It's possible, of course, that as relations fray between the Tea Party and the establishment, the Tea Party will move to the left on economics and foreign policy, ejecting much of the conservative establishment, and be in a position to pick up some outliers on the left, with the result that a populist party similar to what Reich describes, or to populist parties in the US's past, or to nationalist parties in Europe, will result--but in this scenario, it's the GOP, looking more and more like the Democrats of a century ago.

Given that scenario, a Friedmanesque third party, consisting of the GOP establishment, might arise, taking some centrist Democrats with it.

Driving the Tea Party out of the GOP will probably require electoral repudiation of Tea Party candidates and the Tea Party agenda.  It's not likely to happen in 2012, as Romney is not a Tea Partier, and many Tea Party congresspersons elected in 2010 have been protected somewhat with gerrymandering.

The interesting compare to the Tea Party is the rise of the antiwar Democrats after 1968--when Southern Democrats started to leave the party, and the Dems started their generation in the political wilderness.  A few notable third party candidacies did form in the post-Civil-Rights era--the Dixiecrats, and later John Anderson in 1980.  But none of these managed to stick around.

Given all of that, the chances of a third party--whether centrist or extremist--becoming a long-term viable political entity strikes me as remote.  Our political system promotes a stable two-party model.

More on the politics of high gas prices.

In the last post, we noted that the political response of the US public to high gasoline prices is, how shall we say it, more severe than the political response to high healthcare costs.  And therein poses a dilemma for progressives.
For many reasons, high prices for gasoline (and other fossil fuels) are generally a good thing.  Burning fossil fuels is bad for the environment, and many of the ways of extracting petroleum are likewise damaging.  Many petrochemical companies are notoriously bad actors.  Maintaining access to cheap foreign oil also requires us to deal with some rather unsavory states, and get involved in military adventures that would otherwise be considered unwise.  It's not exaggerating to say that cheap gas is paid for in blood, not just dollars.
However, high prices for gasoline is also a bad thing for several reason:  First, it is a major retardant on the economy--its an ever-present tax, sucking the lifeblood out of our markets and sending it overseas, where it often pays for who-knows-what.  Second, it has a particularly harsh impact on the poor, for whom transportation is a bigger percentage of the budget--and who are also impacted by higher prices for food and other necessities.  And lastly, if you care about Barack Obama beating the GOP candidate, likely Mitt Romney in the election, it's not good news.
One of the interesting paradoxes of US politics is that presidents get blamed for high gas prices, even though (in the short term) there is precious little they can do about it directly.  President Obama's poll numbers have dropped recently, though whether that is due to energy prices or some other reason is currently unknown.  (In fairness, it must be noted that he attacked the GOP for high gas prices during the 2008 campaign).  Price controls and other aggressive measures of that sort are pretty much off the table.  Increasing domestic production takes years to have an effect.  That hasn't stopped Newt Gingrich from promising $2.50/gal gas if elected, an idea which the White House has dismissed, though The Atlantic notes that it could be done by subsidizing the stuff to the tune of $190 billion. 
While The Atlantic's proposal as given is bad--subsidizing gasoline strikes me as intelligent as subsidizing cigarettes--it wasn't meant to be taken seriously.  (Or at least that's what I'm assuming, graciously giving the editors there the benefit of the doubt).  But on the other hand...
Energy tax credit?
The main problem with The Atlantic's snarky suggestion is not that it involves a subsidy--but that the subsidy only goes to the purchase of gasoline.  But what if $190B, or some other figure, were made available to instead subsidize energy or transportation?  What if every taxpayer got a lump-sum tax credit to offset rising energy costs, one that wasn't tied to any particular form of energy?
With a gas subsidy, those who drive a Ford Expedition to work would get more money back than those who drive a Honda Civic, and the Civic driver would get more back than those who drive a Chevy Volt, ride a bike, or take the bus to work.  It would directly reward the deleterious behavior.  Such a subsidy would also fail on the equity front, as the poor are more likely to be those not driving.  (Transit riders might benefit indirectly if a subsidy would assist the transit agency with its diesel purchases).  And, Big Oil would be the primary beneficiaries of such a windfall.
With a broad energy credit, on the other hand, the negative impacts of high oil prices on the economy would be mostly offset, but the marginal cost of buying gas would not be offset.  This would maintain the advantage of high oil prices--encouraging alternate forms of energy--but not drag down the economy.  And it would be particularly beneficial to the poor, who would appreciate the credit more than most.
I must emphasize that this is a neutral credit--it isn't tied to alternate energy.  Those who wish to keep a gas-guzzling lifestyle not be prevented from doing so.  But nothing will be done in this proposal to decrease the marginal price of gas. I should als mention that this is envisioned as a short-term credit--essentially a form of stimulus--not a long-term entitlement.  It could be structured as a separate line item, or simply as an increase in the standard deduction or personal exemption. 
In addition to a household credit, I'm also assuming in this scenario some sort of energy credit for businesses.  I'll leave the details to others, as I'm insufficiently wonky in this area to put together a concrete proposal.

Is it doable?
Don't be ridiculous.  The GOP isn't going to do anything that might be beneficial to Obama's re-election, at least not without exacting a policy price for it.  (And they might even reject an offer of increased production, one sure to annoy liberals).  But that doesn't mean the proposal isn't politically valuable.  Obama has got tons of mileage out of the Jobs Act proposals last fall; even though little if any of his proposals have been implemented.  And a general energy credit would allow the debate to be framed in a way consistent with progressive values:  Long term, we have to kick the oil habit, we all know it.  But rising oil prices are damaging our recovery, as our economy suffers withdrawal pains.  A short-term energy credit, designed to offset the impact of high oil prices, will allow us to continue with an orderly transition to the economy of the future.  The only ones who really benefit from oil subsidies are oil companies.
If the debate is whether Obama is doing enough to drive down gas prices, that's a debate the Democrats don't want to have.  And while progressives might cheer were the President to tell the American public to eat their vegetables, that's probably not wise politics.  But if the debate could be shifted from concerns over the price of gas to a broader conversation over energy, it would be to progressive's advantage--even if the actual policy proposals go nowhere.