Bankrolling Failure — Outplaying the Democrats
The readers know I’m partial to poker metaphors, so indulge me one more time.
As of three weeks ago, the Democrats were dealt the winning hand, taking a new congressional majority that clearly repudiated the Bush war policy.
Instead of immediately playing the hand aggressively, instead of grabbing the lead, betting out and raising the stakes, they have instead dithered around. Mumbling about ambiguous and prolonged “phased redeployment,” waiting passively for the Baker-Hamilton report, and letting Harry Reid say that he would be amenable to an additional $75 billion in military spending, they showed classic weakness. It’s like when you’re holding a pair of Queens and you limp in with the minimum call. This is not an uncommon error. Often a player knows or strongly suspect he or she is holding the best hand, but nevertheless lacks the acumen and/or the courage to play it for maximum value. He fails to put the other players to the test.
Now the White House has made precisely the sort of move expected from a much more skilled player who, although he is behind in the hand and knows it, nevertheless senses weakness from his rival. It has aggressively pushed “all in,” seizing the initiative, boldly challenging the guy with the best hand to either play it for all the chips or muck his cards.
According to the L.A. Times, the administration is in the processing of re-raising Leader Reid. You want $75 billion? Ok, make that a cool $150 billion is the counter-call from the admin. If the Times report is accurate, and no reason to believe it isn’t, this move puts the Dems squarely on the defensive. Now it’s their nerve that is put to the test. Having failed in the immediate aftermath of the election to clearly state the alternative to current military policy– drawdown and withdrawal– the Democrats will now have to appear to be cutting off the funding of the troops if it balks at the gargantuan proposed spending raise.
The request by the Pentagon, by the way, sets yet another record. The war in Iraq has not only outlasted WWII, it will now cost more on an annual basis, in adjusted dollars, than the war in Vietnam.
Meanwhile, there are new reports that the U.S. military is about to abandon the key province of Anbar. The 30,000 U.S. Marines currently deployed there may soon be on their way to Baghdad itself, the capital city now teetering on total chaos. A report by the U.S. Marine Corps, updated just a week ago says there is no longer any chance of defeating the insurgency there, that the rising dominant force in the area is none other than Al Qaeda. The Sunni minority, living in fear of “pogroms” perpetrated by the Shia militias, have found protection only from Al Qaeda. Civil war? Hardly. As my friend Bill Bradley has said, more accurate to call it a “fucking disaster.”
So what’s another $150 billion?
Time for the Democrats to make their move. Or just stop bluffing and fold.
By the way, in poker lingo, an inexperienced or inept player is called a donkey. How completely appropriate.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:13 am
“Time for the Democrats to make their move.”
That move should be, and should always have been, to cut off funding for the war. The idea that this would be “political suicide” has been pushed most by Democrats and their supporters, and it has become an excuse for the do nothing stance that Marc describes above. If the Democrats do not exercise their countervailing power against the administration, how are they going to enforce their campaign pledges to draw down the war? By convincing Bush to do it?
November 29th, 2006 at 12:38 am
Hi Marc,
Isn’t it time that we stopped fretting about failure of Democratic Party to propose alternatives or show a spine or stick to principles? In fact, is there any evidence in recent decades that any real opposition party exists in the US? I believe it is time for us to move on and start contributing to our societies in our own little ways. Both the institutional parties have been sucked in by moneyed interests and THAT is not going to change. How do we expect these parties to fight for the people when they are beholden to corporate interests (unless we are delusional – which, I regretfully have to say – most supporters of these parties are)?
I remember as a fresh immigrant 20 years ago, I used to rail on people because a large percentage of Americans never participated in elections. I now recognize why they didn’t – I have stopped participating in elections too! I don’t see any decent choice at any level. So, I do my small bit at individual level and wish a new alternative would emerge (fantasy is great). So what is the point of my rambling? It is that in absence of principles (which the Democratic party symbolizes), nothing can be accomplished. A principled (evil, manipulative, expedient, and cynical principles, but principles neverthless) Bush and Republicans can take a nation to war against all odds, cut taxes for the enormously wealthy (Tuesday’s NYT C7 states that income of top 300,000 Americans is more that the combined income of 120 MILLION Americans!!!), destroy civil liberties, pack courts with idealogues, sanction torture, etcetcetc. And they still get away with it, they can STILL dictate the debate! What is wrong with this picture? What is wrong is our false belief that we have an alternative/opposition. One Feingold doesn’t make an opposition (and sorry, Obama supporters, he is no different from other senators beholden to corporations – read Ken Silverstein’s article on Obama).
So, Marc, where do we go from here? Bush is a despicable slime, but he sticks to his guns. What does it make Democrats?
Chotu the dog
November 29th, 2006 at 1:14 am
Chotu, you forgot to mention that the tax cuts left the top 20% paying a HIGHER percentage of the income taxes paid than before; plus record high Dow, record low unemployment, record high home ownership. The economy’s in fine shape.
Marc, haven’t you been reading about the Bait and Switch of the Dems? That’s what Murtha was all about — most Dems aren’t ready to support cutting and running.
But the failure of the Iraq Arab Muslim Sunnis to stop murdering Shia has naturally led to the Shia supporting death squad justice.
When a community, like N. Irish Catholics, support and hide murderers, like the IRA, there’s way for the state to impose “justice” based on presumption of innocence.
All the Dem talk about pressuring the Iraqis to “do it themselves” is working — the Iraqi death squads are cranking up to do ‘it’ themselves.
And at its deepest core, the superiority of democracy and rule by majority is that the an equally armed majority has more guns.
The likely solution will be “tribal cantons”, where the local majority tribe insures local security, probably with a local police and local secret death squad.
Here’s my rage against Bush & Bremer & the UN in promoting a national party type of democracy leading to civil war (from May 2004):
Iraq will be a bloodbath
And again I note: Bush-hate noise drowns out constructive criticism. Your own “cut and run is the only option” is juvenile defeatist.
The Dems should be cutting reconstruction aid, and replacing it with city loans to stable, peaceful Iraq cities. Like in the Kurdish areas.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:15 am
there’s NO way for the state to impose justice
November 29th, 2006 at 1:24 am
“Bush-hate noise drowns out constructive criticism.”
I wonder why so many of us hate Bush? Is it because he is an ignorant, incompetent, stupid fuck completely unqualified to be president? Oops, there it goes again, the Bush-hate noise, sorry!
November 29th, 2006 at 3:15 am
“The economy’s in fine shape.”
And while I am here: Liberty Daddy clearly has not been reading the business pages the past week. I know he gets the Herald Tribune there in Bratislava, he must turn straight to the comics page.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:35 am
Tom Grey, making yet another one of his paternity claims on Liberty:
“Record high Dow”
Actually not, in real terms (i.e., after inflation). And it’s not all about the Dow–look at more representative market indices (e.g., S&P), and you see a market way down from its bubbly peak of 2000. I think the markets have been propped up in part by a housing bubble that leaves a significant “wealth effect”. We have not yet returned to rationality.
“Record low unemployment”.
Bzzt. Sorry. That record was apparently achieved in 1953. In recent years, the low point was 1999.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/prev_yrs.htm
Behind this, we have years of stagnation in real median wage levels. Ben Bernanke, the new Fed chief, is hardly unaware of the risks of that:
http://www.ndnblog.org/?q=node/155
And that slight but significant stagnation in wages masks a more significant loss of employer-sponsored health insurance:
http://www.kff.org/uninsured/kcmu101906pkg.cfm
If you are employed and have coverage through your job, you’re doing OK against inflation, until very recently. But if you are unemployed and then get a job, your chances of getting decent coverage are lower now.
“Record high home ownership”
Today? Actually not — the record was set in 2004 4Q.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/hvs/historic/histt14.html
Growth in home ownership rates has actually been pretty low in the first half of this decade, when you consider the ridiculous ease of financing we’ve seen (luring more into ownership) and a now-deflating housing bubble (no longer the lure that it was).
OK, so Tom doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about–what else is new? How about this:
“All the Dem talk about pressuring the Iraqis to “do it themselves†is working — the Iraqi death squads are cranking up to do ‘it’ themselves.”
How odd that it’s OK when Bush talks that way–that’s about freedom in Iraq–but when it goes sour, it’s all the Dems fault.
November 29th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Impeachment is the Democrat’s shortest, and possible only, route to credibility with voters.
The kind of help from allies and Iraq’s neighbor’s Bush’s dad’s handlers are now groping for will never arrive as long as W remains president.
Worse, without impeachment, i.e. a real ”accountability moment,” the whole Iraq invasion psychodrama of macho-insecurity identity politics will repeat itself in due course and at ever greater expense.
I agree with Marc, the Democrats are, at the moment, on course for yet another self-immolation on national security leadership.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:04 am
If Bush is impeached and convicted doesn’t that make Cheney president? I need to check my copy of the Constitution.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:47 am
The problem with the poker analogy is that it paints too sympathetic a picture of the Dems. In this case, the hole cards are face up, the Prez is sitting there with 7-2 off suit, and the Dems still can’t find the sack to place a bet.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:52 am
The Baker Commission’s job, as I read between the lines, is not to find a “solution” the Iraq situation, as if there were any, but to provide political cover to the Bush Administration while it worms its way out of its mess. We have the Nixonian example–keep killing lots of people while talking tough and buying time so that some other poor chump takes the blame (Ford in this case, remember him?) I think we should not underestimate their cynicism in simply trying to find a way personally to suffer as little as possible.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:03 am
The Iraq war is costing more in yearly, adjusted for inflation dollars than the Vietnam war?
If that’s true, then it is a testament to the greed of Halliburton et al. I agree with Ram, Chotu – there is no opposition party in this country (Marc, how come he gets to say that, but everytime I say it, you threaten to ban me from your site for being a ‘rabid ideologue’?).
If the dems weren’t so ‘sucked in by moneyed interests’ as Ram asserts, they could really make hay out of the Iraq vs Vietnam costs.
How would Nancy Pelosi be able to explain to her donor/friends at Bechtel that she accused them of being war-profiteers?
November 29th, 2006 at 8:44 am
I would assume Marc agrees that there is no opposition party. There are opposing individuals that but for the Stalinist excess of party loyalty, would be more effective . Chuck Hagel, JJohn Conyers, Russ Feingold, even Jim Webb. They have no power. And they are enabled by the liberal “MSM” ie the “Dissenting” Blogosphere. Markos Moulitsas is making money off of all of this.
I think the Democrats have sent down orders from Commissar Rahm Emmanuel to “do nothing” for two years except little band-aid solutions (minimum wage raises are no subsitute for living wage laws, etc.) to show the “public that they can govern.”
November 29th, 2006 at 10:11 am
Boo Hoo. Bad Democrats! Bad! Bad!
November 29th, 2006 at 10:15 am
Or maybe, since there are no real opposition parties its time for Revolution. Right? I mean I saw “Battle of Algiers” and read my Franz Fanon and lord knows after reading Marc’s diatribes I feel wretched enough.
May I remind everyone here that the new guys don’t take over till January so why not give them till, oh say, January 2. Then you can pronounce the whole thing a failure.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:24 am
rlo, you might be better off reading Marcuse and Paul Goodman. This is American society after all.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:41 am
I don’t know if Michael Balter is being sarcastic, but many of Marcuse’s theories – which were set against the abundance-capitalism (relatively speaking) of the 50s “where everyone had food in their larder” and
November 29th, 2006 at 10:44 am
(sorry hit post by accident) I don’t know if Michael Balter is being sarcastic, but many of Marcuse’s theories – which were set against the abundance-capitalism (relatively speaking) of the 50s “where everyone had food in their larder†and
the proletariat was bought off – does not apply to modern America at all. I am a big fan of Marcuse and the Frankfurt school in general – but the type of capitalism – Keynesian Monopoly style – is no longer the operative organizing factor in bourgeois society.
Is it time for revolution? Depends on what constitutes revolution. I think there could be – without corporate and private funding – a democratically elected social democratic antiwar government in America. Corporate interests – from oil to the Military Industrial Complex – won’t allow that, nor will lobbyists. This is why a big issue, in my opinion, is complete public funding of elections and an outright ban on any form of fundraising for politicians, including using their own money.
November 29th, 2006 at 10:48 am
There is some merit to the argument that some are screwed no matter which party “rules” in Congress and in the executive branch. The Republican party system is a libertine-cowboy-business model, allowing those with drive and greed and ambition to prosper. The Democrat party system is a top-down-govt-control system, allowing politicians, lawyers, and lobbyists to prosper and wield power over the masses, while throwing a few bones to the downtrodden in the form of minimum wage increases and Great-Society allotments.
The Republican system allows a greater portion of the populace to prosper than the Democrat system, and so is preferable. The extreme version of Democrat-style govt is Stalinism. Just barely right of Stalin was Hilter, with his Nazi party (National Socialist Workers Party). Leftism is closer to fascism at it’s core than Capitalism, which allows business the advantage over govt. Capitalism could be called “Thinly Controlled Anarchy.” Having spent quite a bit of time in Europe, I find Capitalism preferable to Socialism, Totalitarianism, or Monarchy.
As for Iraq, the left’s problem is that Democrat leaders know that pulling out is not a viable option. So, Dem leaders give the defeatists on their left wing some lip service while voting for war funding. Even the UN knows the score, and has just voted approval of the Coalition mission in Iraq for another year. The left helped elect some Democrats, but the left is still defeated, and the low player on the power grid. Once again, the common good is served.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:11 am
If you want to change the public discourse and ultimately make a more accountable leadership in this country, then get involved, especially at the local level. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for people who pull their hair out from their desk chairs lamenting the failures of their society. Complaining can be productive but is no substitute for engagement.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:52 am
Marcuse was tough going Mike and wasn’t he Angela Davis’ thesis advisor and didn’t he call her his best student? I know that a prof is not responsible for what his students say but when they single one out for praise – like Alan Bloom did for Francis Fukiyama – well . . .
I must have read all of Paul Goodman’s books and was very impressed. Then I started to consider some of his ideas. Do I really believe that any child will learn to read the same way she learns a language? So no formal schooling is needed? And the first place I ever heard of the idea of vouchers was in one of his books. There is a place for anarchy but there are limits.
Maybe J Cummings could elaborate on his “Democratically elected Social Democratic Antiwar” government. We couldn’t get public funding passed here in Califrornbia as no one wants to “Give” money to politicians to run for office. As I said yesterday, given the state of the mass media, how do you explain the connection between private money and special interests. When the meme is “all politics is corrupt” (not a bad description of what goes on here BTW) its a little hard to expect people to embrace politics. Funny thing is those Ancient Greeks thought the public life the highest calling of the citizen. But then they were just a bunch of Dead White Males.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:59 am
Hey Marc Davidson, “get involved” in local politics.
What a concept!
Of course, that would mean the whiners here would actually…gulp…do some work to be constructive. And whining and wining is so much more fun, and easier too.
(For me too. Sip.)
The Reps in the Primaries generally failed to boot corrupt, big-spending “successful Rep incumbents” in favor of small gov’t Conservatives — the Dems generally failed to boot corrupt, war-accepting “successful Dem incumbents” (like Hillary) in favor of anti-war folk.
If fighting for your own (probably corrupt) more attractive candidate isn’t worth working towards in the primary, it sure ain’t gonna result in no revolution.
Reminds me of Tracy Chapman’s song Talkin’ about the Revolution. Whenever I hear “Someday the poor are gonna rise up, take what’s theirs” I can’t halp (!) but think, the poor (males) can’t even rise up to go to work every day, there ain’t gonna be no revolution.
Riots and easy demonstrations for a couple days, maybe.
Revolution…no way.
Want anti-war candidates — who in your district is the anti-war Dem you plan on supporting in 2008? If you don’t know, why isn’t it you?
(I’d run against Jerry Lewis in CA, but Bratislava is a bit far for the campaign.)
November 29th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
I was only half serious about Marcuse but deadly serious about Goodman. His essay about banning all private cars from Manhattan should be required reading, and he understood youth alienation better than anyone–and what he wrote in Growing Up Absurd is still just as relevant today. The sad thing is that during the 60s idealism was valued and today it is reviled.
November 29th, 2006 at 12:04 pm
Elaboration:
Politicians with broadly egalitarian, social democratic/socialist (ie broadly redistributive, nationalization of some industry, etc – but still a private sector in cultural and small business, etc.), anti-imperialist, populist and anti-elitist could get elected across the country, if polls are to be believed. People overwhelmingly voted for this type of agenda, not the agenda that the Democrats seem to be implementing (doing the bidding of capital and empire.)
November 29th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Elaboration:
Politicians with broadly egalitarian, social democratic/socialist (ie broadly redistributive, nationalization of some industry, etc – but still a private sector in cultural and small business, etc.), anti-imperialist, populist and anti-elitist could get elected across the country, if polls are to be believed. People overwhelmingly voted for this type of agenda, not the agenda that the Democrats seem to be implementing (doing the bidding of capital and empire.)
November 29th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
I wasn’t necessarily referring to anyone here. This is a worthwhile forum. I just cringe when I hear people say they don’t vote or otherwise participate in the democratic process because, as we all know, “they’re all corrupt and it’s a waste of time.”
Frustrated with the opposition party? Work to change it for the better. Broad-brush characterizations of politicians and parties are not only silly but counterproductive.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:30 pm
“Broad-brush characterizations of politicians and parties are not only silly but counterproductive. ” And broad-brush characterizations about characterizations aren’t always accurate. In this case, e.g., the Democrats really are, except for a few who like to say they aren’t but don’t actually do anything to back it up, pro(letting-women-have-the-legal-right-to-have-the)choice(to-have-their-unborn-babies-killed).
ITMT, o I do hope that all of you become so disgusted with those horrible pro-War-evil-in-the-pocket-of-corporate-america-so-called-Democrats that you support a bold, principled, fresh new party. Like the Greens. Or Ralph. Run, Ralph, Run!
November 29th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
“Growing Up Absurd” was one of those seminal texts of the sixties that I read a long, long, time ago in a place far, far away. I don’t know how I’d respond to it now. I do know that when it comes to urban life and the criticism of same you could do a lot worse than the works of the late Jane Jacobs whose “Life and Death of the Great American Cities” is as valid today as it was in 1960 (I believe thats the pub date). Her theory of the crowded street with its many “eyes” helping to keep order impressed me then and still explains why so many examples of “Renewal” like LA’s Bunker Hill Project don’t work.
Significantly she moved to Toronto. Her works – and Lewis Mumford’s – almost made me go into Urban Planning.
November 29th, 2006 at 3:24 pm
Of course none of this has anything to do with the main argument of this thread. And that is what the new Congress will or should do about Iraq. I still think that the new guys mean it when they say they want to get us out as fast as possible. And I also still think that the Baker-Hamilton Commission may be the vehicle to get the administration a face-saving way out. But the recent remarks of Bush suggest a petulant child who refuses to listen to daddy and wants to throw still more tantrums rather than face the fact that his policy is in tatters and the adventure is over.
But did you see the WaPo article that Cheny’s visit to the Saudis was a command performance while the Oil Princes said enough is enough and are going to flex their muscles to ensure that Iran doesn’t emerge as the big winner? I wonder how this will go down with all those “Culture Warriors” who want to waste Mecca and show them A -Rabs whose boss? Well Chaney knows and what’s good for Exxon-Mobile you know . . .
November 29th, 2006 at 3:28 pm
And that extra 75 – 150 billion is the price that has to be paid to restore the effectiveness of all those Army and Marine Battalions whose equipment is worn out and need replenishment of their TOE.
As I suggested the other day we have to do that in all probability and the question becomes whether or to make this an additional sum or take it from budget offsets in the rest of the Defense outlays. And it won’t be enough to merely say “Peace Dividend”. You better have a plan.
November 29th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
Michael Balter,
If Bush is impeached or resigns, then v.p. Cheney becomes president. If v.p. Cheney is impeached, resigns, or has yet another heart attack so he can’t take the job, then Rep. Nancy Pelosi becomes president. I believe Cheny never ran for presidency because of his heart problems. Yes, Nancy Pelosi is 2nd in line for presidency of the U.S. Personally, I’d like Pelosi as president. If she’d run in 2008, I’d vote for her!
Now that the LA Times announced the Pentagon will ask for billions upon billions more as a supplemental for appropriation, then one of the first big tests for the Democrats is how they vote on the Pentagon requests. As for me, I am going to tell my Congresswoman to vote no on all Iraq war funding. The Democrats did cut off war funding in Vietnam in 1974, so they can do it. They just have to do it! People should urge their Congresspeopole to cut off war spending to Iraq.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
OK a quick tally. Lo Cicero, True Democrat, we’re gonna mark you down as a “yes” for the $150 billion in additional Pentagon spending. Cool. When you get a moment, send us over a list of what domestic programs you want to cut to pay for all that new “equipment.” As we know neither party is going to levy a war tax.
Chotu the Dog, my good friend, couldnt agree with you more. You should never, ever interpret my chiding of the Democrats to mean that I have any faith in them to respond, nor that I am even disappointed. A negative on both those notions.
The wonderful part of breaking with Democrats at age 15 is that 40 years later they only amuse me– they certainly dont disillusion me. Woof woof!
November 29th, 2006 at 11:01 pm
“As for me, I am going to tell my Congresswoman to vote no on all Iraq war funding. The Democrats did cut off war funding in Vietnam in 1974, so they can do it. They just have to do it! People should urge their Congresspeopole to cut off war spending to Iraq.”
Julia, don’t you know that this would be–gasp, choke, gasp–POLITICAL SUICIDE?
Also it would be exerting leadership. I agree with you totally, this is what should be on the agenda for Jan 2, and then I will give the Dems a break, rlo.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
btw, we are often told that those Democrats who voted for the war in Iraq in the first place did so because it would have been–gasp, choke, gasp–POLITICAL SUICIDE to have seemed weak in the War Against Terror. As I have said before, if John Kerry had taken a strong stand against the war all down the line the likely result would not have been suicide, but the presidency.
November 30th, 2006 at 11:58 am
He Steve-O, you should probably stay away from political theory and stick to drinking milk until you throw up.
as to the military spending, it’s worth noting this section from the LA Times article Marc highlights:
The next request stands to be larger partly because of new rules laid out in an Oct. 25 memo from Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England. Rather than strictly limiting spending to Iraq and Afghanistan costs, the memo said the military services could include costs associated with operations that are part of the larger war on terrorism.
Previously, the military portion of the supplemental spending measures has been used almost exclusively for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. England’s memo would allow the military to include a greater number of expenses more loosely tied to the actual wars, such as new military weapons systems and training exercises.
Critics of the Pentagon budget process say the memo has encouraged the services to inflate their requests.”
$150 billion is ridiculous. And we’re still using emergency spending bills because the administration doesn’t want to submit their spending bills to congressional oversight. You know, like the constitution requires.
I’m not ready to cut all funding – I think that’s the kind of drastic measure that shouldn’t be used until the Democrats have played all their other cards (and Marc’s right that they aren’t playing well YET) – but these kind of funding increases without any tax increases are ridiculous. Warmonering is expensive and if conservatives think it’s necessary then they shoud ask us to pay for it up front rather than sticking the bill with future generations. Show some spine.
May 11th, 2008 at 6:51 am
Marc Jacobs Handbaags…
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you….