Closer, Probably

There is more good news than bad, or at least more significant good news than bad. Talking Points Memo reports that, unfortunately,

An urgent Saturday morning White House debt talks meeting between President Obama and Congressional leaders ended after less than an hour, a sign that both sides likely still remain in a stand-off.

But the President laid down a marker, somewhat, in his remarks (text, here) last night when he noted

Last point I’ll make here. I mean, I’ve gone out of my way to say that both parties have to make compromises. I think this whole episode has indicated the degree to which at least a Democratic President has been willing to make some tough compromises. So when you guys go out there and write your stories, this is not a situation where somehow this was the usual food fight between Democrats and Republicans. A lot of Democrats stepped up in ways that were not advantageous politically. So we’ve shown ourselves willing to do the tough stuff on an issue that Republicans ran on.

Although the President- inaccurately- characterized beltway differences of opinion as the "usual food fight," he did at least assert that this is not a "he said, she said" situation. One side, he noted, has "stepped up in ways that were not advantageous politically" while "we've shown ourselves willing to do the tough stuff on an issue that Republicans ran on."

Admittedly, it's a little late to start making this argument. The debt limit has been raised 89 times since 1939- all with clean bills and the current GOP leadership on Capitol Hill has voted 19 times to raise the debt limit. Saint Ronald himself once asserted

Congress consistently brings the government to the edge of default before facing its responsibility,” Reagan says in the clip. “This brinkmanship threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits. Interest rates would skyrocket, instability would occur in financial markets, and the federal deficit would soar. The United States has a special responsibility to itself and the world to meet its obligations.”

Obama's comments were not dramatic or very powerful, but they did constitute what passes for healthy partisanship from this president: we're trying to prevent the destruction of the nation's, and perhaps the world's economy, and they're not. Even if our team is trying to do it by giving the other side almost everything they could have dreamt of.

But a more important factor is coming into play. Grover Norquist (the Americans for Tax Reform in the Americans for Tax Reform), who this past week explained that letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire would not constitute a tax hike, would constitute a tax hike, and might constitute a tax hike, apparently has been listening to his organization's corporate sponsors. Their identities remain, as permissible under law, a secret but Joe Conason, who recently interviewed Norquist, reports

Unlike the Tea Party Republicans, but much like his supporters in the business community, he is troubled by the potential consequences of an impending and unprecedented default. As Norquist told The National Memo today in an interview:

“I am not an advocate or adherent of the position I have heard some state, that a default would be ‘not a big deal’ or ‘would strengthen the hand of those arguing for limited government.’ I worry that handing the executive branch control over what bills to pay is not a wise move....even when they would have less cash to spend.”

Norquist went on to say that “a ‘shutdown’ or ‘default’ or ‘wobbly walk around the rim of default’ would be, as my mother would say, ‘unhelpful.’ How unhelpful? I don’t know, [and I’m] not real interested in finding out. Let’s experiment on a smaller country.”

Consistent with their campaign rhetoric, those "Tea Party Republicans" have firmly and virulently held firm against anything which approximates a tax increase. If they vacillate, equivocate, or show any sign of self-doubt (practically a capital offense in GOP politics, anyway), they may find themselves going the way of Bob Bennett. And that is in large measure because of Grover Norquist.

It's a sad, sad state of affairs that the economic viability of the United States may depend on pressure applied by the business community upon the political party it owns. But when the situation is this dire, it's better than the alternative.

Share|

Considering Sotomayor

It really is a good article Joe Conason wrote, posted in salon.com on May 29, 2009. He notes that Republicans are some now attacking President Obama's nominee for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, for allegedly being the beneficiary of affirmative action. It's odd, or hypocritical, that they are doing so in light of the avid support Repubs gave the nomination to the Supreme Court of Clarence Thomas. Thomas was an undistinguished judge on the U.S. District Court of Appeals, whose selection had little to do with merit:

Every account of those deliberations indicates that Bush and his aides went through a list of potential African-American nominees to the high court -- and rejected politically moderate judges with better qualifications than Thomas, such as Amalya Kearse. They picked him because they had to fill a "black seat" on the court, and because he was prepared to enforce their ideology on the court.

Conason notes that contrary to its righteous indignation over the selection of someone who has acknowledged the role that her background, cultural and otherwise, has played in shaping her as an individual

the right can never bring its corrosive racial skepticism to bear on Thomas, a man who had proven his willingness to parrot reactionary bromides. He is the single most prominent beneficiary of the quest for diversity in American history, but he is their diversity candidate -- and thus deserved elevation, if not as a distinguished jurist, then because he had suffered discrimination as a conservative.

But here it gets sticky. Like most of us on the left, Conason is unable, unwilling, or ideologically undisposed to follow his argument to its logical conclusion, instead arguing

In his memoir, Thomas recalls the innocent delight of old friends and family, who "saw my nomination as an affirmation of the American dream: a poor black child from the segregated South had grown up to become a Supreme Court justice. Who could be against that?" The same question can be turned around now -- with considerably greater justification.

If Thomas is indeed as mediocre- to be gentle, diplomatic, and probably generous- a justice as Conason and most liberals/progressives believe, certainly one should question the wisdom of obsessing over issue(s) of empathy, life experiences, culture, or whatever those on the left or the right are calling it. Thomas was indeed "a poor black child from the segregated South" who had much to overcome- and was elevated to the highest court in the land because of a perceived "black seat" on the Court and, well, the need of the GOP to prove to Americans of good will that it was not the "racist" party.

Sonia Sotomayor probably will be confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice- heck, even Rush Limbaugh believes she will- and may become a great judge. Just not for the reasons that the right seems to believe she is a danger to the Republic, roughly the same reasons that the left is generally pleased with her selection. It would not be because Sonia Sotomayor is Puerto Rican (or "Newyorkrican," as she proudly puts it), or female, or grew up, without a father, in a housing project in the Bronx, or so 'down to earth' that she plays cards, and eats lunch, with her lowly staff. It would be because of extraordinary understanding of the law, impressive scholarship, a sharp legal mind, strong powers of persuasion, a solid judicial temperament, and other traditional factors characteristic of a good judge, if not a blockbuster movie-of-the-week.

Values And Ideology: To The Back Of The Bus

Joe Conason typically writes provocative article from the left for salon.com, and his latest, "The Supreme Court Pick of Obama's Dreams" is no exception. However, it is wrongheaded and misleading.

Conason argues that the likely selection of Sonia Sotomayor, judge on the Second Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, to replace retiring justice David Souter, Conason would presents President Obama with a tremendous political opportunity, as Sotomayor likely would be loudly opposed by Republicans. How, he gloats "do you say 'bring it' in Spanish?" He argues

As a female her elevation would begin to bring gender equity to a forum where historically men have exercised far too much unchallenged power over the lives of the women. As a Latina, her rise would symbolize the next stage in the full enfranchisement of immigrants whose language, status and poverty have too often turned them into scapegoats for the cultural and economic costs of globalization.

Consider that Conason says here that the appointment:

1) would "bring gender equity" to the Supreme Court "("to a forum...). Nothing here about gender equity in society, only on one, admittedly influential, court;

2) "would symbolize the next stage in the full enfranchisment of immigrants...." Nothing here about advancing the enfranchisment of immigrants- only about "symbolizing" the cause. And no acknowledgement that though Sotomayor's parents, from Puerto Rico, were immigrants, they were Americans before even entering the United States- unlike, say, Mexicans, in whose category Sotomayor so cavalierly places Puerto Ricans.

3) would be a repudiation of immigrants being turned "into scapegoats for the cultural and economic costs of globalization." Again, insofar as immigrants have been turned into scapegoats for globalization (a facile and superficial treatment of the issue of immigration/illegal immigration), Puerto Ricans have not typically been used as such scapegoats. Except by extremely ignorant individuals unable or unwilling to differentiate them from Mexicans or other immigrants.

Suggesting we "leave(ing) aside for a moment the question of her precise place on the judicial spectrum between liberal and conservative," Conason later suggests "Sotomayor is considerably more moderate in her thinking and practice than Samuel Alito or John Roberts."

And that is the problem- if accurate- Conason glosses over. He contends that Obama could ignore the charge that in the appointment of Sotomoyer, he is ignoring white males, "because, thanks to his predecessor, members of that group were awarded the last two seats on the court."

But John Roberts and Samuel Alito are not white males. They are conservatives. And they were not appointed because they were white males but rather because they were conservatives. (If Conason believes otherwise, he should go immediately to the point and accuse George W. Bush of racism.) And while Conason and those of similar viewpoint urge selection of minorities and women irrespective of viewpoint (and judicial temperament, age of nominee/likely length of service, etc.), conservatives/Republicans will push this President, and presumably future presidents of either party, to appoint justices who are outraged by (abridged list): regulation of the financial industry; environmental safeguards; gun control; the graduated income tax; the Sixth Amendment.

Joe Conason may be right that the GOP could not vehemently denounce selection of Sonia Sotomayor without practically immolating itself, and she might even be the individual most likely to bring over a long period advanced qualities of scholarship, leadership, and progressive/liberal values to the Court. But that would be far superior motivation than the lure of ill-defined "change" in ethnicity, gender, or any other factor an individual gains by dint of parentage.