The New Southern Problem

Harold Meyerson in the Washington Post:

[In last month's election] The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South. As for the new Senate Republican caucus that chose Mississippi's Lott over Tennessee's Lamar Alexander to be deputy to Kentucky's Mitch McConnell, 17 of its 49 members come from the Confederacy proper, with another three from the old border states of Kentucky and Missouri, and two more from Oklahoma, which is Southern but with more dust. In all, 45 percent of Republican senators come from the Greater South.

More problematic, so does most of the Republican message. Following the gospel according to Rove (fear not swing voters but pander to and mobilize thy base), George W. Bush and the Republican Congress, together or separately, had already blocked stem cell research, disparaged nonmilitary statecraft, exalted executive wartime power over constitutional niceties, campaigned repeatedly against gay rights, thrown public money at conservative churches and investigated the tax status of liberal ones. In the process, they alienated not just moderates but Western-state libertarians.

The one strategist who fundamentally predicted the new geography of partisan American politics is Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland political scientist whose book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South" appeared several months before November's elections. Schaller argued that the Democrats' growth would occur in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, the Mountain West and the Southwest -- areas where professionals, appalled by Republican Bible Beltery, were trending Democratic and where working-class whites voted their pocketbooks in a way that their Southern counterparts did not. Al Gore carried white voters outside the South, Schaller reminded us; even hapless John Kerry came close.

Yes.

No time to comment. Go read the whole thing!

Conservatism and Katrina

Today the Liberal Blogosphere is drawing attention to the failures of our government in response to (and preparation for) Hurricane Katrina, which devastated New Orleans one year ago.

Debris still clog the streets 12 months after the storm. What work has been done is tainted by price gouging and no-bid contract awards. Katrina refugees, yes American refugees, still live in trailers with no signs of change or progress.

This is due to George W. Bush's the implementation of the Republican ideology in a purer form than any seen since before FDR.

Most frightening, Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans is only the tip of the iceberg. All the problems with infrastructure in NOLA that lead to the destruction of an American city exist in infrastructure all across the nation. From the Seattle Times:

WASHINGTON -— A pipeline shuts down in Alaska. Equipment failures disrupt air travel in Los Angeles. Electricity runs short at a spy agency in Maryland.

None of these recent events resulted from a natural disaster or terrorist attack, but they may as well have, some homeland security experts say. They worry that too little attention is paid to how fast the country's basic operating systems are deteriorating.

"When I see events like these, I become concerned that we've lost focus on the core operational functionality of the nation's infrastructure and are becoming a fragile nation, which is just as bad -— if not worse -— as being an insecure nation," said Christian Beckner, a Washington analyst who runs the respected Web site Homeland Security Watch.

The American Society of Civil Engineers last year graded the nation "D" for its overall infrastructure conditions, estimating that it would take $1.6 trillion over five years to fix the problem.

"I thought [Hurricane] Katrina was a hell of a wake-up call, but people are missing the alarm," said Casey Dinges, the society's managing director of external affairs.

Katrina has shown that Republicans have no interest in maintaining our nation's vital infrastructure. It's a question of ideology. Small government conservatism laid bare.

It noted that half the 257 locks operated by the Army Corps of Engineers on inland waterways are functionally obsolete, more than one-quarter of the nation's bridges are structurally deficient or obsolete, and $11 billion is needed annually to replace aging drinking-water facilities.

What does The Decider, the Compassionate Conservative, the leader of the Republican Party have to say about that?

"Infrastructure is always a difficult issue," Bush acknowledged. "It's a federal responsibility and a state and local responsibility. And I, frankly, feel like we've upheld our responsibility at the federal level with the highway bill."

And we spend billions every week rebuilding (or not rebuilding, as the case may be) that we destroyed in the first place in Iraq.

If this is the Republican vision of America, I want no part of it. I believe that government can and should provide for the construction and maintenance infrastructure for all Americans, rich or poor. I believe that the government's greatest responsibility is for those need the most. To borrow a phrase, "The least shall be first."

As citizens in a Republic, we entrust our government with the authority and ability to provide the things necessary for the population as a whole which individuals cannot provide for themselves. Things like protection, in the form of just law enforcement and public defense, roads, dams, levees, with the common good being the motivation, not profit for favored corporations, industries, or individuals.

The Republicans have shown absolute disregard for this obligation.

As the new hurricane season starts with Ernesto bearing down on Florida, the sad consequences of a decade of Conservative government will become harder and harder to cover up with media blitzes and public relations offensives.

Katrina New Orleans One Year Later George W. Bush Republicans Conservatives Conservatism

GOP Kicks Soldiers When They're Down

From the USA Today:

Congress appears ready to slash funding for the research and treatment of brain injuries caused by bomb blasts, an injury that military scientists describe as a signature wound of the Iraq war.

House and Senate versions of the 2007 Defense appropriation bill contain $7 million for the Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center - half of what the center received last fiscal year.

Proponents of increased funding say they are shocked to see cuts in the treatment of bomb blast injuries in the midst of a war.

"I find it basically unpardonable that Congress is not going to provide funds to take care of our soldiers and sailors who put their lives on the line for their country," says Martin Foil, a member of the center's board of directors. "It blows my imagination."

The Brain Injury Center, devoted to treating and understanding war-related brain injuries, has received more money each year of the war - from $6.5 million in fiscal 2001 to $14 million last year. Spokespersons for the appropriations committees in both chambers say cuts were due to a tight budget this year.

Thank God for Republican Tax Cuts. I'm sure that the Richest 1% of Americans will donate the money to make up the difference.

Despicable.

Republicans Wounded Soldiers Cut Funding Defense and Veterans Brain Injury Center Tax Cuts Compassionate Conservative

Ummm... Unicorns?

E.J. Dionne Jr. has a fun little column in today's Washington Post:

The End Of the Right?

Is conservatism finished?

What might have seemed an absurd question less than two years ago is now one of the most important issues in American politics. The question is being asked -- mostly quietly but occasionally publicly -- by conservatives themselves as they survey the wreckage of their hopes, and as their champions in the Republican Party use any means necessary to survive this fall's elections.

Nice thought, Mr. Dionne, but I'm pretty sure that we won't see the end of Conservatism anytime soon. What's the springboard for this wonderful daydream? The Minimum Wage/Estate Tax bill, of course.

Rarely has our system produced a more naked exercise in opportunism than this measure. Most conservatives oppose the minimum wage on principle as a form of government meddling in the marketplace. But moderate Republicans in jeopardy this fall desperately wanted an increase in the minimum wage.

So the seemingly ingenious Republican leadership, which dearly wants deep cuts in the estate tax, proposed offering nickels and dimes to the working class to secure billions for the rich. Fortunately, though not surprisingly, the bill failed.

The episode was significant because it meant Republicans were acknowledging that they would not hold congressional power without the help of moderates. That is because there is nothing close to a conservative majority in the United States.

Yet their way of admitting this was to put on display the central goal of the currently dominant forces of politics: to give away as much as possible to the truly wealthy. You wonder what those blue-collar conservatives once known as Reagan Democrats made of this spectacle.

Mr. Dionne goes on to examine the 'fissures on the Right.' The corporatists vs. the christianists. The pro-lifers vs. libertarian stem cell advocates. Big business 'immigration = cheap labor' vs. 'don't let in the brown people' xenophobes. 'Iraq was a good idea' vs. 'Iraq was a bad idea' vs. 'it doesn't matter, it's not working there anymore, let's go home.'

And he's right, of course. And this internal disputes may lead to a change in election results. But it won't remove 'conservatism' or 'Conservatism' from American politics. I know that Mr. Dionne didn't mean that all conservatives would pack up and go home, but the idea that a temporary advantage for Progressives will be "The End of the Right" invites us to lose focus.

The nature of conservatism is, fundamentally, "Things are working out well for me now, let's not have government interfering, trying to make it better." Because there will always be people who 'things are working out well for' either deservedly or undeservedly, there will always be conservative forces trying to maintain the status quo. People will always want to keep more of their income. Businesses will always want to have less regulation. (Some) people will ways be afraid of things with which they are unfamiliar.

Conservatism, big 'C' or little 'c' will always be with us.

Besides that, in America today, Conservatism has a better machine, a better operation. It has more money and better propaganda. We shouldn't be patting ourselves on the back because we think 'The Right' is tripping up. We need to work hard now to put ourselves in that position.


E.J. Dionne The Right Conservatism Conservatives 2006 Election

Compassionate Conservatism

We'll rescue you from war torn Lebanon, but you gotta pay us.

Oh, and once we get you to Cyprus, you're on your own. Personal responsibility, you know. Have fun.

How fucking Christian of the Bush Administration.

U.S. Nationals Lebanon Rescue Compassionate Conservatism

1 in 9 Americans live in Poverty

Things that often don't make it into the American Press are often caught by foreign publications like The Observer.

A shocking 37 million Americans live in poverty. That is 12.7 per cent of the population - the highest percentage in the developed world. They are found from the hills of Kentucky to Detroit's streets, from the Deep South of Louisiana to the heartland of Oklahoma. Each year since 2001 their number has grown.

Under President George W Bush an extra 5.4 million have slipped below the poverty line. Yet they are not a story of the unemployed or the destitute. Most have jobs. Many have two. Amos Lumpkins has work and his children go to school. But the economy, stripped of worker benefits like healthcare, is having trouble providing good wages.

Even families with two working parents are often one slice of bad luck - a medical bill or factory closure - away from disaster. The minimum wage of $5.15 (£2.95) an hour has not risen since 1997 and, adjusted for inflation, is at its lowest since 1956. The gap between the haves and the have-nots looms wider than ever. Faced with rising poverty rates, Bush's trillion-dollar federal budget recently raised massive amounts of defence spending for the war in Iraq and slashed billions from welfare programmes.

That's 1 in 9 Americans. And 15 percent of those have slipped below the poverty line under Bush's watch. Real numbers: More than one in 100 Americans has fallen below the poverty line during Bush's first 5 years.

They are people like Freda Lee, 33, who has two jobs, as a marketer and a cashier. She has come to the nondescript Loaves and Fishes building - flanked ironically by a Burger King and a McDonald's - to collect food for herself and three sons. 'America is meant to be free. What's free?' she laughs. 'All we can do is pay off the basics.'

Or they are people like Tammy Reinbold, 37. She works part-time and her husband works full-time. They have two children yet rely on the food handouts. 'The church is all we have to fall back on,' she says. She is right. When government help is being cut and wages are insufficient, churches often fill the gap. The needy gather to receive food boxes. They listen to a preacher for half an hour on the literal truth of the Bible. Then he asks them if they want to be born again. Three women put up their hands.

This is the new American economy. Wal-Mart jobs instead of manufacturing jobs that the Unions have grown into living wage providers. A high school education won't get you very far anymore but without government help, the $50,000 buy in for a college education is out of most people's reach. Even public education is failing. If you can't get far without a high school diploma, how far do you think you can get without one? In Texas more than a third of students entering public high schools now drop out. Funding for social programs and public education is dwindling.

Where will 8 (or more) years of Repubican rule leave us?


Poverty Bush Republicanism