Category Archives: Politics

How Lobbyists Win in Washington

Posted on by

[From “How the Lobbyists Win in Washington” by Jeff Madrick, a review of Lee Drutman’s The Business of America Is Lobbying:]

…there are two crucial points that are disturbing. The first is that business spends $34 on lobbying for every dollar spent by likely opponents such as labor unions and other interest groups.

The second point is, I think, Drutman’s most important. It may once have been adequate for lobbyists to provide business clients access to the right people. Today, however, they also must develop expertise on major political issues, so that they can provide policymakers with research, draft legislation, and pass on up-to-the-minute information. Lobbyists, not [government] staffers … are now the major source of information for Congress and the executive branch on major legislative issues. In one survey, two thirds of congressional staffers said they depend on lobbyists for the information they need to make legislative decisions and pass bills. Thus lobbying grows because Congress, and often the executive branch, needs lobbyists.

[Of course, we know that information is power. The rest is behind a paywall at New York Review of Books.]

The Brexit Referendum May Have Simply Been Political Theater

Posted on by

Andrew Moravcsik, a political science professor at Princeton, predicted back in April that the United Kingdom wouldn’t leave the European Union even if the “Leave” referendum were to pass. Now that it has passed, it’s important to remember that it wasn’t legally binding. The parliaments in Scotland and Northern Ireland may be able to veto it. In addition, neither Prime Minister David Cameron nor the Brexit-supporting MP, Boris Johnson, who wants Cameron’s job are in any rush to begin the formal process of leaving:

The Brexit debate has become a global spectator sport, which suggests that something very important must be at stake. Yet, unlike issues such as migration, the euro crisis and Ukraine, it lacks real significance: under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum on June 23. It is instead a long kabuki drama in which politicians, not least Eurosceptics, advocate policies they would never actually implement…

Instead, the government would probably do just what EU members — Denmark, France, Ireland and the Netherlands — have always done after such votes. It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it. The public, essentially ignorant about Europe, always goes along.

Now that Brexit appears within [the Euroskeptics’] grasp, they are backing away from it. What they really seek is domestic political power. If Britain votes to leave, the government will fall or, at the very least, the cabinet will be reshuffled. For Eurosceptic backbenchers, this is a once­-in­-a-­lifetime opportunity. Yet they lack parliamentary and popular majorities to govern alone. They would have to strike a deal, which means moderating anti-European demands — all amid post­-referendum economic chaos. Renegotiation inside the EU would be almost inevitable.

Excessively cynical? Hardly. Few Eurosceptics are more prominent (or ambitious) than Boris Johnson, and he has signalled his willingness to compromise. The mayor [now former mayor] of London’s soundbites remain flamboyant: “The door of the jail [is] open, and people can see the sunlit land beyond.” But read the fine print.

When the referendum was announced, Mr. Johnson said that voting to leave need not necessarily mean leaving. Britain might renegotiate a better deal inside the EU, followed by a second referendum. So voters need not worry: “If you vote to leave, all your options are good.”

From the Ridiculous to the Sublime: Maureen Dowd and Brian Wilson

Posted on by

NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd may have written her most embarrassing column yet. And she’s written more than her share of embarrassing columns.

The thing is: Dowd likes Donald Trump. They’ve had personal conversations. So it makes a bit of sense that she wants to give him the benefit of the doubt. Still, her latest column, “Trump in the Dumps”, is quite surprising. 

Trump jumped into the race with an eruption of bigotry, ranting about Mexican rapists and a Muslim ban. But privately, he assured people [apparently including Dowd] that these were merely opening bids in the negotiation; that he was really the same pragmatic New Yorker he had always been; that he would be a flexible, wheeling-and-dealing president, not a crazy nihilist like Ted Cruz or a mean racist like George Wallace. He yearned to be compared to Ronald Reagan, a former TV star who overcame a reputation for bellicosity and racial dog whistles to become the most beloved Republican president of modern times.

After cataloging what she sees as the pros and cons of his candidacy, she ends with a bang:

Now Trump’s own behavior is casting serious doubt on whether he’s qualified to be president.

Now? As in this week?

Could it be that Dowd likes Trump so much and dislikes the Clintons so much that she’s seriously considering Trump’s strengths and weaknesses? And she’s still on the fence a year after Trump began campaigning?

But then it occurred to me that maybe her conclusion was ironic, a bit of understated humor. I usually don’t read Dowd’s column these days, given the silly stuff she writes, but she can be funny in a nasty sort of way. Perhaps she was merely having fun at Trump’s expense? I’d like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I really don’t know.

In other news, Pet Sounds turned 50 last month and Brian Wilson turned 74 today. In case you don’t know, he’s the tall one with the Beatles haircut on the album cover. So, in his honor, here’s “Wouldn’t It Be Nice” a few times.

First, the instrumental backing track:

Next, just the voices (right after the opening notes):

Finally, the finished product:

I said it was from the ridiculous to the sublime.

Who Is She Anyway? And What’s She Really Like?

Posted on by

With that devastating speech Hillary Clinton gave this week, lots of news about the scam formerly known as “Trump University”, and the end of the primary season only a few days away , it feels like a bubble has burst. Clinton will be the next President. Trump will spontaneously combust on live TV. Sanders will go back to being the junior Senator from Vermont (and if he keeps doing the Republicans’ job for them, be relegated to the Senate Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy, Poultry, Marketing and Agriculture Security – that’s a real thing and someone has to go to their hearings).

Meanwhile, I found two more comments I left somewhere. They were both in response to articles about Hillary Clinton. The first had to do with her “likeability”. It was written by David Brooks, a nincompoop who suggested she tell us more about her hobbies: 

The Guardian published one of those “why women aren’t crazy about Hillary” articles this week. The women interviewed didn’t offer much justification. So I looked at the comments section. The level of vitriol directed at her was amazing. The comments were much more negative than the reasons people gave.

It’s reasonable to conclude that opposition to Hillary Clinton is more visceral than rational. The reasons don’t justify the dislike; the dislike generates a search for reasons. Mr. Brooks can’t explain the phenomenon because he’s only looking at her, not the people who dislike her so much.

The second may have been in response to that very article in The Guardian: 

[Some on the left think she’s much too conservative] and yet the Republicans think she’s a closet socialist who will take away their guns and destroy the economy. It’s so tiresome hearing Clinton depicted as a corporate whore, a pawn of Wall Street, when she’s actually a liberal Democrat who will govern to the left of her husband and probably to the left of Obama.

After all, she’s in favor of more Wall Street regulation, higher taxes on the wealthy, better childcare, abortion rights, fewer people in prison, immigration reform and less student debt. I wish she was less inclined to support military action and more even-handed regarding the Palestinians, but there is no reason at all to think she won’t pursue a liberal agenda when she’s President, even if it’s not as liberal as some of us would hope.

All these insults and talk about not “trusting” Clinton is simply a cheap and easy way to attack her without being specific about anything, while wrongly implying that she’s a Republican in sheep’s clothing (the Republicans certainly don’t think so).

Remember, it was “Slick Willie”. Nobody has ever accused Hillary Clinton of being slick.

“Nobody Ever Accused Her of Being Slick” could have been the title of an article in New York Magazine by Rebecca Traister, a self-styled former “Hillary hater”. The actual title is “Hillary vs. Herself”. If you want to understand who Hillary Clinton is, and what kind of President she’ll try to be, please read it.

Now, if she’ll only be as nice to the reporters who follow her around as she is to other people….

Hillary Makes Her Case and Lambastes Trump

Posted on by

Hillary Clinton delivered a speech in San Diego today during which she explained her national security priorities and showed Trump no mercy. And she did it while being totally “Presidential”. There should be no doubt in anyone’s mind that she is a serious person who is seriously qualified to be President. Here’s a brief summary of her remarks from The New York Times. It’s accurate enough but leaves out her argument that doing things like reducing income inequality and fostering human rights also contribute to our national security. 

You can see the whole speech courtesy of CSPAN. It’s beyond belief that any rational person could watch it and go away thinking Trump would do a better job protecting us than she would. If you asked them, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as well as Vladimir Putin, would agree.