PMC Commentary

Recalling David Brooks' Intro to Psych course

Chait pokes fun at the enduring saga of the Brooks-Krugman feud:

In a column last week, David Brooks urged wealthy Americans to "strike a blow for social cohesion" by avoiding displays of ostentatious consumption. In his column today, Paul Krugman argues with conservatives who urge rich people to avoid displays of ostentatious consumption. Who does Krugman have in mind with his critique?

I confess my reading of Brooks has fallen off of late, mostly because his ever-deepening but highly selective journeys into the social sciences began making me feel as though I was trapped in a lower-level, undergraduate sociopsychology course. Naturally, the Times' resident conservative professor had--what else?--a conservative agenda, although this is not what disturbed me. His cleverness at trying to hide it did.

Example? Brooks once wrote (endlessly, it seemed) about "happiness," about what made us happy, what kept us happy, and so on. His underscored theme in all these writings was that money--in general, conservatives' Marxist bête noire of grubby materialism--does not make us happy. Woe to the average American who strives for excessive material comfort as a substitute for human fulfillment, for he or she is doomed. This, I quite agreed with. Brooks, however, always refused to take the next logical step: soaking the unseemly American rich through a responsibly redistributive tax code would not, then, make them particularly unhappy.

No, for some reason--hmmm--Brooks felt compelled to instruct the wayward and deprived lower classes in their material as well as socio-psychological naiveté, yet where materialism has truly and obscenely run amok, mum was Brooks' word. Let the poor know that money can't buy them happiness, but lordy lord, let's do leave the wealthy alone in their superabundance. 

 

The teeming GOP stable

Former corporate executive Carly Fiorina joins Dr. Ben Carson in the Republican vice-presidential sweepstakes, although both of them must first pretend that they're seriously contending for the top slot, to which Mitt Romney will lay claim once he discovers that "circumstances" have changed.

So that's three for the first debate. Very doable in a Des Moines television studio. But if all the GOP contenders wish to appear, debate planners will need to move the spectacle to a cornfield. Because so far (and this is by no means an exhaustive roster) we also have Rand Paul, Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Paul Ryan, Mike Rogers, John Bolton, Mike Huckabee, Marsha Blackburn, Michele Bachmann, Rob Portman, Bobby Jindal, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Mike Pence, Peter King, Herman Cain, Jon Huntsman, John Kasich and Donald Trump--all have expressed interest in losing to Hillary.

Twenty-five of them ... and counting ... and every one of them convinced on delusional stilts that next time will be the GOP's time; all of them chanting tax cuts! and executive humility! (excepting the corpulent one) and smaller government! and trillions more on defense! (well, 24 of them, anyway).

Me? Today I feel like rooting for Marsha Blackburn. I'm dying to know if, over the more than adequate span of two years, any journalist anywhere can get the congresswoman to directly answer a direct fucking question.

 

Cruzin' in overdrive, as always

Is there any conceivable situation across the aisle that Ted Cruz would not interpret as an intolerable abuse of power, a constitutional crisis and an imminent destructor of American civilization, a la the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man?  

Allowing Democratic senators, many of whom will likely have just been defeated at the polls, to confirm Holder’s successor would be an abuse of power that should not be countenanced.

 

The Middle East brings us Bizarro World

Extraordinary. In their columns today, the Post's gun-blazing Krauthammer and the NYT's daisy-toting Egan are both supportive of, and optimistic about, our latest ill-fated adventure in the Middle East. Not since the yellow horde poured across the 38th parallel, or the "gooks" sped a phantom torpedo at us in a little-known Asian gulf, have we seen such ideological unity (I omit 9/11's immediate patriotic harmony, since Bush Inc. threw a wrench into that almost as immediately).

Krauthammer praises the president for "effecting a workable strategy" of "containment-plus" against ISIS in Syria. Egan, though he acknowledges the "careful-what-you-wish-for peril" of our martial efforts, believes we can "pressure the Sunnis to police their own" and, in Obama's words at the U.N., thereby end the "corruption of young minds by violent ideology."

Krauthammer concedes our campaign "will take years"; Obama, he adds, must "demonstrate the steel to carry it through." Likewise, Egan knows our Middle East reengagement will consume the commander in chief "till the end of his presidency." Krauthammer says Obama is bringing to bear "the best of our available strategies"; Egan says Obama's objective is "a long shot," but it could produce "a path to a peace that may outlast him."

But--and it's a big but--in the eyes of our Sunni partners, the objective is unlikely to be a forward-looking peace.

Can they "police their own"? Absolutely. This morning the NYT takes note of the oppressive nature of each our regional allies--Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, UAE, Jordan and Qatar--further noting that the latter, in 2012, "sentenced a poet to life in prison for reciting a verse deemed insulting to the country’s ruler." That's some Middle East playmate we have there--one straight out of the Middle Ages.

What's more, Saudi cooperation, especially, is precariously hinged on the U.S.'s utter rejection of Shiite Iran as a regional, cooperative force--and on Bashar al-Assad's ultimate destruction. Any apostasy on America's part will find the Saudis dumping us, and taking their Sunni allies along with them. We are, in effect, at the mercy of Saudi policy--not our own. And Saudi policy is entrenched in ancient Sunni-Shiite hostilities.

I am unsurprised that Krauthammer and the hawkish right can't or won't see the hoary, underlying sectarian land mines scattered before us. They have their war, and unpleasant realities only upset them--hence they avert their eyes. But that the customarily shrewd Egan and so much of the center-left have been dazzled by the unrealistic prospect of a lasting, civilized peace? Distressing.

 

Hey brothers and sisters, can you spare a few billion?

A few figures are trickling in.

A Tomahawk cruise missile--we've expended more than 50 so far--runs about $1.5 million. The aircraft we're using in Syria and Iraq--F-22s, F-16s and B-1 bombers--"cost between $20,000 and $65,000 per flying hour." We now have approximately 1,600 military advisers "authorized" for Iraq; the Pentagon says more could be needed. "A single soldier [represents] $1 million per year."

A former national-security budgeteer "estimates the fight against ISIS could cost between $15 billion to $20 billion annually."

The Bush administration initially estimated the total cost of the Iraq war at $50-$60 billion. It was off by a factor of at least 20. The costs are still mounting.

 

Rouhani's choice

NY Times:

President Hassan Rouhani of Iran delivered a searing indictment of Western and Arab states on Thursday in his annual speech to the United Nations, blaming them for sowing the seeds of extremism in the Middle East with "strategic blunders" that have given rise to the Islamic State and other violent jihadist groups.

Well at least he didn't isolate the United States in his accusation. Because, let's everybody face it, our repeated invasions of the Middle East; our bombings; our occupations; our scheming and intrigues; our removal of democratically elected governments; our propping up of ruthless dictatorships; our playing of one ruthless dictator off another; our occasional references to "crusades"; our corporate exploitations; our relentless support of a regional, apartheid-inflicting theocracy that is universally detested by Arabs; and in general our precipitous meddling in the Middle East have all been executed with the best of intentions and nobody should say otherwise. Which, thankfully, Rouhani did not.

 

Holder's departure: game on

I smell a wee bit of a bind for the outgoing Eric Holder.

The NY Times reports that the Attorney General has for some time wanted to "leave office by the end of this year." And a White House official emails the Washington Post, saying the A.G. "will remain at the Department of Justice until his post is filled." With our alternatingly absent or dysfunctional Senate, that could be a while.

Whenever they return to what they call "work," Republicans are sure to throw one of their infamous hissy fits at whatever nomination Obama submits--and both president and nominee will be facing a lame-duck chamber.

Meanwhile, Erick Erickson sees Holder's departure as a kind of satanic shooting star: "Holder resigning is another sign the Democrats are worried about having to deal with a Republican Senate majority in January." For once, Erick could be right.

 

Howard Dean finds sorrow in questions

Howard Dean groaned yesterday as though Hillary's dilemma is somehow unique in American politics. "There’s no upside to answering questions, 'What would you do differently than the president is doing?'" he said. "The press is always running and pitting her against President Obama. She’s been put in a no-win position by the Beltway press corps."

Every presidential candidate attempting to follow his party's incumbent president has had to cope with the delicacy of distance. That, quite simply, has always come with the territory. There is no way around it. I would also hasten to note, somewhat redundantly, perhaps, that the "Beltway press corps" is scarcely the entity that has "put" Hillary in that position. Hillary did--and she's had six years to formulate cogent answers about it. Finally, any candidate who can't handle the Beltway press corps has no business attempting to handle such domestic, firebreathing and damn-near autonomous Leviathans as the Pentagon.

Sorry, Howard, but you have failed to touch my heart.

 

Sabato's forecast. Sounds about right.

UV's Center for Politics' Larry Sabato:

We talked to senior Democrats and Republicans involved in the House contests ... as well as some of our fellow analysts and journalists.... We asked each source to give his or her best guess as to what the net change in House seats would be on Election Day. The guesses were generally in the range of a five-to-eight seat GOP net gain--the same as ours--with a low guess of Republicans adding two seats to a high guess of Republicans adding nine.

Why so few gains expected in a generally favorable GOP midterm? Because Republicans already scooped up a dominating gain of 63 seats in 2010, only eight of which were lost in 2012. In other words, Republicans will be re-maximizing their House advantage in what can only be described as a form of collective electoral madness: an even stronger majority from a party that has given us abundant theatre and malign obstruction, nothing else.

Meanwhile we're dropping billions on a new Middle East war, and yet from these deficit hawks, we hear not even a peep.

 

Flash: Dick Cheney upset over Obama speech

Some people. Some people you just can't please.

In Politico's almost ineluctable, front-page juxtaposition there sits one story in which President Obama's U.N. speech is compared to the brawling rhetoric of W.'s speechwriting firm of Thiessen, Gerson & Frum, and just inches away there sits another story in which Dick Cheney--speaking to, who else, Sean Hannity--is furious over Obama's reference to ... Ferguson, Mo. 

I was stunned.... There’s no comparison to that with what ISIS is doing to thousands of people throughout the Middle East through bloody beheadings of anybody they come in contact with. To compare the two as though there’s moral equivalence there, I think, is outrageous.

Short of the American Third Army washing over Raqqa, Cheney is getting most everything he wants. The U.S.-led air coalition is distressingly top-heavy; the war is being conducted on executive authority alone; the White House is ramping up near-apocalyptic rhetoric against a markedly dubious threat to U.S. national security; we're now openly committed to a prolonged campaign; and the sinkhole of that latter condition eerily invites the eventual introduction of that absent Third Army.

For Cheney, this ghastly situation is--or at least should be--evocative of George Costanza's memorable outburst to Seinfeld: "Do you ever get down on your knees and thank God you know me and have access to my dementia?" But that, however twisted, would for Cheney be a sign of graciousness. Can't have that. Instead, attack.

 

Sweet 15 may be the end of me

My daughter gets her driver's permit today, and I get an aggravated case of hyperanxiety. I regret that I don't respond to Valium or Xanax's intended effect very well. They both fatigue me, but that's it. It seems I'm a pharmacological novelty. Strong drink, maybe?

 

Jim Webb--bring him on

Yesterday, a Jim Webb-"intrigued" reader sent me a video of the former senator's address to the National Press Club, and asked what I thought of his possible candidacy. My answer was that, in my opinion, "if anybody has a shot at defeating Hillary, Webb does. The problem, though, is of course money." Hillary will have a lock on it, and if Webb begins to threaten her in Iowa or elsewhere, she'll unleash it on him with the ethical care of a Mitt Romney.  

But, on occasion we do witness the impotence of big money. Lord knows Hillary's head start in 2007's graft-chase never did her much good, since as a presidential candidate, her irrepressible negatives outweighed her positive cash flow.

A secondary problem for Webb is that he's not exactly Mr. Dynamite. He's rather dry, somewhat diffident, infinitely methodical in delivery and, though eloquent, only mildly inspiring. On the upside, such things can be tweaked; that's why God created media consultants. What's more, professional competence practically oozes out of the guy.

Does he have a shot? You bet he does, assuming he kicks in to at least one higher gear. It's well known that Senator Webb never cared for the banalities of retail politics, but then again, Senator Obama didn't either.

 

Obama's U.N. address

In its summary of Obama's address to the U.N., the NYT says the president "laid out a forceful new blueprint on Wednesday for deeper American engagement in the Middle East, telling the United Nations General Assembly that the Islamic State understood only 'the language of force.'"

I, for one among billions, have no problem with deploying the "language of force" against ISIS. No sane person would. The Islamic State is no mere foe; it's an unfeeling, inhuman plague on humanity that, like all plagues, invites its own extermination. No one will grieve over the slaughter of ISIS. On that much, we in the rational world can agree.

It is, rather, the lead-in to "language of force" that troubles: "a forceful new blueprint ... for deeper American engagement in the Middle East."

This, as the world knows, is precisely what Obama spent six years avoiding--for excellent reasons, all of which the world knows as well--and yet suddenly he commits to not only a deep, but a prolonged, engagement in the Middle East. No member of the international community would have begrudged the United States its launching of punitive strikes against ISIS. Not after Foley and Sotloff. Indeed the world would have wondered, had such strikes not come. Obama's dramatic and even radical turn to the deep and prolonged, though, is both astonishing and dismaying. Aside from the Barbary Wars two centuries ago, has American military engagement in the Middle East ever earned us anything but grief?

The NYT's coverage nonetheless offers some hope: "it remained unclear whether Mr. Obama’s speech represented a fundamental reconsideration of his policy or a reluctant response to the threat posed by the Islamic State." I'm rooting for vintage Obama--that is, reluctance.

***

On CNN just now (4:10 pm Eastern), Bill Kristol finally got to quote his old man: Obama "has been mugged by reality," he said of the president's speech--and Billy couldn't be happier.

 

PPP, D-E-Ms, and SOL

From Public Policy Polling:

Republicans [are] leading across the board in the state's key races for this year, led by Tom Cotton with a 43/38 advantage over Mark Pryor.

And that, mind you, is from a Democrat-friendly poll.

More interesting is PPP's finding that though Bill Clinton remains popular in Arkansas (he has a 14-point net-positive rating), Hillary is running behind Mike Huckabee by 12 points, behind Jeb Bush by 5, behind Rand Paul by 2, and yes even behind the certifiably psychotic Ted Cruz, by 1.

Hillary is, however, strong against Chris Christie, pounding him 42 to 41.

Hillary fever. Catch it.

 

Ben Carson makes it pretty much official

Well, the GOP's 2016 vice-presidential candidate has made it official, telling Hugh Hewitt Monday that the odds of his faking a run for the higher office "are reasonably good," meaning they're absolutely certain. First, though, he "want[s] to make sure that it’s clearly something my fellow Americans want me to do." Like a Baptist praying for guidance about something he has already decided on, Dr. Carson, I quite strongly suspect, will discover his fellow Americans are just wild about Ben.

Politico notes that he "offer[ed] insight into who his voting base would be." His insight makes clear that he's got the bullshit thing down pat:

I hope it’s going to be that individual who loves America, who understands that we should place the Constitution on the top shelf, that we should not pick and choose who the winners and losers are in our society, and that we shouldn’t pick and choose which laws we want to enforce, and those people who understand that the person who has the most to do with what happens to you in life is you.

A bold declaration--Carson wants only Americans who love America, respect the U.S. Constitution, etc. etc.--but  not nearly as thrilling as, "You know Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery."

A most serious man.