Posts Tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Dissecting Krauthammer on the Debt Ceiling

Tuesday, July 26th, 2011

So my conservative uncle really likes this Charles Krauthammer article. He likes it so much that he e-mailed it twice. Of course, his version came from the paranoid neo-con Jewishworldreview.com website. Which is weird, because he’s Italian, but I digress…

Regarding Krauthammer, I hate to break it to him, but he and the other Fox News talking heads are the only people who care about what was in Obama’s original budget that never stood a chance to be enacted; or about how many times Obama said debt in his State of the Union speech. (How often did Bush say debt? How did that work out?)

It’s like Krauthammer lived in Washington all his life and never heard of politics. Obama let the Republicans go first on the debt because they spent the last two years complaining incessantly about it, and because they ran their whole campaign on cutting the deficit as if they just awoke from a 8 year winter slumber just in time for President Obama’s inauguration.

But you gotta give credit to these guys. They sure have (as Michele Bachmann would say), a lot of “chutspa.” They ran their last campaign on how unconscionable it was for Obama to make some small cuts in Medicare to fund health care and then, as soon as they get elected, every single one of them voted not only to cut Medicare, but to completely abolish it and replace it with a system that centers around coupons.

…and the poor Republicans had their plan demagogued by mean old President Obama. Not like the Republican’s have ever demagogued anything before (death panels anyone?).

Regarding the corporate jet and oil company tax breaks, I’ve heard this argument before from Republican pundits, but it seems like a counterintuitive point to make if you’re arguing for the Republican side. If the tax increases generate so little revenue (and presumably don’t impact very many people), then shouldn’t the Republicans jump at a deal where they only have to cut loopholes that benefit a few in order to balance the budget that they supposedly care about so much?

In retrospect, it’s clear what people like Krauthammer have their panties in a bunch about. They thought that Obama was such a pushover that they could force him to make massive cuts by threatening the economic security of the United States. But in a brilliant political move, Obama called the Republicans bluff by offering significant cuts in government spending with the caveat that Republicans would have to support popular tax increases that only benefit a select few (who also happen to be the Republican base). The House Republican’s response was typical: they walked out of the negotiations rather than discuss tax increases, proving once again that (although they might care about deficits a little bit), they clearly care about keeping and extending tax cuts even more.

I understand that all the Republicans made pledges to Grover Norquist not to raise taxes, but that’s not my problem, and it shouldn’t have to be the country’s problem either. The Republicans didn’t take over the government last year. They took over 1/3 of the 3 institutions that are involved in passing laws. Once they elect a Republican president, keep control of the House, and have over 60 solid votes in the Senate, they can get everything they want and balance the budget on the backs of (future) seniors and poor people. Until then, they are going to have to compromise.

My unsolicited advice to Republicans: quit acting like crybabies. Only children are naive enough to think they will get everything they want, especially in this system. Get over yourselves and do your job.

Glenn Beck off the Deep End

Sunday, March 6th, 2011

It seems like Glenn Beck may have finally gone too far.

The week that the Egypt protests broke wide open, Beck seemed to go off the deep end with his talk of how the peaceful protests in Egypt demanding the end of Mubarak’s rule could be a precursor to the eventual establishment of an Islamic Caliphate that would take over the entire Middle East and potentially spread into Asia and Europe.

If you didn’t know that Beck was a pasty faced huckster with no real sense of international politics or history, then you might get really freaked out watching him manipulate his touchscreen to create a phosphorescent Islamic Caliphate out of the entire Middle East and then explain how Spain, France, Britain and Italy could come under the sway of the new Caliphate because they also have some Muslims living in their countries. Beck goes on to weave a complex tapestry of conspiracy, which includes among its members both President Bushes, “the Left,” and labor unions, just to name a few. In fact,  throughout the week Beck tied the Islamic caliphate theory to quite an impressive list of Fox News villans, including Islamic Socialists, ACORN, Code Pink, Anarchists and Bill Ayers, all of whom Beck claimed were engaged in a  ”well orchestrated campaign” to pave the way for the caliphate.

The next week, Bill Kristol at the American Standard, the most idealistic (Pollyanish?) of the neo-cons, called Beck out. Kristol contrasted Charles Krauthammer’s words of caution about events in Egypt and Beck’s paraniod ravings, noting:

hysteria is not a sign of health. When Glenn Beck rants about the caliphate taking over the Middle East from Morocco to the Philippines, and lists (invents?) the connections between caliphate-promoters and the American left, he brings to mind no one so much as Robert Welch and the John Birch Society. He’s marginalizing himself, just as his predecessors did back in the early 1960s.

In fact, as Chris Matthews pointed out, Beck’s paraniod ramblings seems to be cribbed directly from the John Birchers‘ recent talking points.

In the month that has followed, a number of prominent conservatives have joined Kristol in denouncing Beck. Joe Scarborough (no fan of Glenn Beck before) called him ”bad for the conservative movement” and said that he was “losing it before our eyes.” Peter Wehner, from the uber-conservative website Commentary, called him the “most disturbing personality on cable television,” and urged conservatives to distance themselves from him before he “blows apart professionally.” Time columnist Joe Klein noted that he had heard from more than a few conservative sources that “prominent conservatives” have approached Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes and pushed for his ouster at Fox.

While Fox has never been a network particularly concerned with the truth, perhaps a better motivator may be Beck’s declining ratings: January’s ratings were the worst he’s posted since his Fox show debuted in January 2009.

My own take on this is that two trends are driving this backlash against Beck and people like him:

First, the country has had a full two years of heart rending bitter partisanship. While Obama and Pelosi were running the country and the Right was fully mobilized against them, there was a strong tendency toward cohesion. The nutty conspiracy theories that Beck was spouting were tolerated because they were aimed at a common enemy. Now that the inexorable march toward liberal “tyranny” has been stopped, people are looking for a respite from the continual pitched battles between left and right. This has shown up not only in Beck’s declining ratings, but in public opinion about Sarah Palin after she clumsily and agressively went on the attack after Gabby Giffords was shot. At a time when the country needed healing, Sarah Palin showed the same pettiness that she has shown throughout her career, and the public took note. While Obama delivered a stirring speech on the need to come together as Americans and tone down the rhetoric, Palin once again seemed obsessed with her own public image and sense of victimhood.

In a similar vein, the Republican victory is revealing cracks in the facade of conservative unity that were obscured during the fight against a common enemy. These cracks were conspicuously on display during the Egyptian protests.  Neo-cons who still believe in Bush’s “freedom agenda” have a far different worldview from the cautious realpolitik that Repulicans like Kissinger and Brent Scowcroft used so effectively (and that Obama’s team has tried to emulate), and Glenn Beck’s Bircher influenced conspiracy theories are almost diametrically opposed to the neo-con worldview. As events unfolded in Egypt, you had people like Beck and others basically arguing that Muslims can’t be allowed to have democracy and neo-cons like Kristol arguing that Middle Eastern democracy is essential to achieving our national security objectives.   

While no faction has a monopoly on truth, Beck’s recent rantings are undeniably nutty and it is clear that it’s probably in the interest of the Republicans to distance themselves from him. As Kristol alluded to, we may finally be seeing a replay of the early 1960′s when William F. Buckley famously denounced the John Birch Society in the National Review.

The secretive Birch Society had views that were not far from Beck’s. It’s founder, Robert Welch had called President Dwight D. Eisenhower, ”a conscious, dedicated agent of the communist conspiracy” and he claimed that the US government was “under operational control of the Communist party” (can’t you hear Beck saying something like this on his show?).  

In his 1962 editorial, Buckley called Welch “idiotic” and “paranoid” and said his views were “far removed from common sense.” This effectively banished the Birchers from the conservative movement for almost 50 years, until  they re-emerged in 2010.

Could we be watching history repeat itself 5o years later? I won’t hold my breath, but this might be fun to watch. 

I’m With Krauthammer

Tuesday, January 4th, 2011

Just catching up from the holidays and posting a few things I missed while gone.

This is from the aftermath of the tax deal.

While the Democrats were damning the president for giving up core principles and Republicans were crowing about the fact that they got their number one priority (tax cuts for the top 2%) by threatening to stop all legislative activity, (including benefits for 9-11 first responders and tax cuts for 98% of Americans) Fox News Commentator Charles Krauthammer wrote this piece, in which he called the tax cut deal a “really big win for the president.”

He cited some of the same reasons that I had given for arguing that it wasn’t such a bad deal for Obama, namely that Obama, in effect, tricked the Republicans into running short term deficits to stimulate the economy after they spent two years arguing that deficits were no good and very bad, even during a recession.

In a somewhat discordant note, Krauthammer noted that the deal “will add as much as 1 percent to gross domestic product and lower the unemployment rate by about 1.5 percentage points.”… Sounds good to me so far… but, he quickly added, ”that easily could be the difference between victory and defeat in 2012.”

For someone who spends their time writing and thinking about politics, that is a stunning statement to make. We’re in the greatest recession since the Great Depression, hiring has stagnated and we are debating a policy that you believe will add 1% to the GDP and lower unemployment by 1.5%… But you consider that a bad thing because Obama might get re-elected when more people have jobs? That’s positively Limbaugh-esque.

But I digress…Krauthammer followed this one up with another article in which he said that, if Obama is reelected, “historians will mark his comeback as beginning on Dec. 6, the day of the Great Tax Cut Deal of 2010.” There’s a lot of water that needs to pass under that bridge, but this may ultimately be true. If the economy comes back, Obama’s going to get the lionshare of the credit. The stimulus effectively built a floor under the economy and (we can hope) the new package will prime the pump for more private sector hiring to get this economy going.

All in all, Obama ends his 2nd year with a ton of challenges, but also a ton of accomplishments.

As I joked recently, Obama’s first two years have been a total failure:

  • preventing a Great Depression
  • stabilizing the US banking system
  • rescuing the American Auto Industry
  • equal pay for women
  • a children’s health care expansion
  • ending subsidies to corporate banks for college loans
  • a major national service program expansion
  • the largest federal investments in energy and education in the country’s history
  • the largest federal investments in infrastructure in the country’s history
  • health care for 30 million more Americans (which eluded progressive presidents for 70 years)
  • significant increases in assistance for veterans
  • repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
  • a new START Treaty with Russia

And even though the Democrats had historic losses in the House, his approval is still better than Reagan and Clinton at the same time in their presidencies.

and now comes the pivot to the center.

All this against the backdrop of a Republican Congress that ended the year explaining how some $17 billion in unemployment extensions during the worst recession since 1932 “need to be paid for” but $140 billion in tax cuts for the top 2% can just be added to the deficit.

As Krauthammer notes, soon after they voted for the tax deal,

Republicans began righteously protesting $8.3 billion of earmarks in Harry Reid’s omnibus spending bill. They seem not to understand how ridiculous this looks after having agreed to a Stimulus II that even by their own generous reckoning has 38 times as much spending as all these earmarks combined.

Hey, I’m all for ending earmarks. They’re symbolic of a broken process in which even the so called “fiscally conservative” bring home the goodies for their constituents. But let’s get real: they account for one half of one percent of the federal budget; and defeating a proposal that has $8.3 billion in earmarks with one hand while you increase the federal deficit by $900 billion with the other does not show “fiscal responsibility.”

As I noted before, the biggest short term benefit to this deal for Obama is to show how hypocritical the Republicans are when it comes to running deficits that benefit their core constituency (those in the upper income brackets).

At least on that point, I’m with Krauthammer.