Is it hypocrisy or irony?

Got to hand it to the Republicans in the House (and their fellow travelers running for president).

They took the House in November, mainly due to economic anxiety and concerns about unemployment (plus, they had a very motivated base that felt they had to take the country back from a foreign-born Muslim president).  

But since taking office they have spent most of their time squawking about the deficit, or in places like Wisconsin and New Jersey trying to take away collective bargaining rights from public employees - economic liabilities that do not create wealth such as teachers and fire fighters.

Complaining about the deficit is code for two things: cutting taxes for rich people, and cutting programs that help non-rich people.

And the union attack is politics plain and simple.  In the wake of the Citizens United decision that allows unlimited corporate contributions, unions and the role they play in elections - both money and people - have never more important.   You take away unions and you take away lots of power from the Democrats.  It's a reprise of the late 19th century policy to break the backs of Native American culture and resistance by wiping out the bison from the plains. 

No more food for plains Native Americans, no more Native Americans.  No more unions, fewer Democrats.  And without unions, Dems would have to raise money exclusively from the same set of economic winners who are socially liberal but fiscally more conservative.

I wonder if after March 4th, the deadline for passing a spending bill to keep the government open, the focus will return to jobs and the economy.

Besides the hypocrisy of running on jobs and governing on helping rich people pay fewer taxes, there's the irony that if you cut the size of government - local, state or federal - you put people out of work.  Government is not some machine that eats money and automatically prints reports and buys toilet paper and tanks.  People - employees, Americans - do that.  And though corporations are raking in record profits they are NOT hiring Americans (those capitalist bastards!).   

And the only way to meaningfully cut the size of government or spending is to gouge defense, or cut Medicare. Medicaid, and/or Social Security.  Everything else is window dressing, hypocrisy, irony, lying - or a cynical ploy to cut taxes and attack unions. 

The last thing the economy needs is more people out of work.  And that's the bottom line here.  Jobs are more important than deficit reduction and tax cuts.  That should be the focus of the executive and legislative branches of government in Washington and state capitals.  

Finally, one last point.  Dems in the House have done a good job of messaging on the lack of action on job creation by the new Republican Congress.  Of course, the minority party does not get much air time on the news.  I just wish Obama would stop engaging the Rs so much when they repeat their mantra on the deficit.  

How hard is it to pivot on this?  "Well, reducing the deficit is an important issue, but my number one concern is putting Americans back to work.  Therefore, I urge Republicans in Congress to work with me on getting that job done first, THEN working on cutting spending."   See how I slipped the word job in there?

Or, "The last thing we need is more folks unemployed, so I urge my colleagues in Congress to only cut programs that DO not cause lay-offs or job losses in the public sector."

See, it's easy!

I take it all back

I guess 2009 really did stink.  One year after giddily watching Obama take office it's hard not to be depressed about the way things have regressed in American politics.


There are many ways to explain the Republican win in Massachusetts tonight; arrogance by Coakley, who did not campaign for weeks after winning the Democratic primary to fill Ted Kennedy's seat; anger at the Democratic machine in Massachusetts, where Republicans have won elections for governor arguing that the Bay State needs to be a two-party state; finally, there was a consensus that Coakley was a pretty bad candidate and not nearly as charismatic as Brown.


One ironic aside.  For years, Rs complained that Ted Kennedy was an immoral and godless liberal.  Well, they just elected a dude who posed nude for a women's magazine.


But the details don't matter.  The Massachusetts Senate election will hurt Obama - and health care.  Short term, House Dems will likely pass the weaker Senate health care bill.  Long term, and by that I mean between now and November 2010, who knows how things will play out.


There is sincere anger with Obama from the left for keeping troops in Afghanistan and for not being more of a liberal.  Of course, the president gets it from both sides; the Rs think he has gone too far, though there is no proof of that at all.


I agree with Frank Rich, that the Rs are fighting so hard because they understand the country is demographically changing, and their brand is fading.  Wins like the one in Massachusetts may bolster R hopes for now, but I still think the arc of history should bend towards the Democrats.  Ideally, the Massachusetts election will remind Dems that Obama swept into office from the left.


But for the Dems to succeed in capitalizing on the demographics tilting the American electorate to the left, they will have to stand up to the Rs, tea baggers, Glen Beck, etc. and defend liberalism. Sadly, unless Paul Wellstone gets resurrected, it's hard to see that happening.


However, there is one person capable of doing that, and luckily that person is President Obama.  Let's hope this gets him more fired up and back in campaign mode.  The other good news is that the Republicans still a) have no message besides that they don't like the president; it's hard to win elections without a positive message; and b) their bench is incredibly weak, so the Dems will be running against crazies in some cases this fall.  And as Coakley found out, a weak candidate can undo huge advantages.


Finally, if employment catches up to the economy this summer and fall, fickle Americans will stop being so mad - and perhaps independents will start thinking for themselves - and reward the President for a fixing the economy.


Anyway, this is my snap assessment of the Massachusetts vote.  I'll revisit this Wednesday night to see if I made any sense.


One last word on independents.  Can we start calling them what they really are, which worst case is stupid and best case is a dilettante.  It seems to me that an independent is someone who doesn't follow politics but thinks their disengagement from the process and civic life gives them some kind of clarity of thought.  


When in truth, the opposite is true.  Since they have no core Republican or Democrat values, and they are not paying attention, they fall for the loudest or most charismatic voice.  I'm sure Obama capitalized from this in November, when his energy and vision combined with deep-seeded anger with George W. Bush to carry independents.  But it's also why 12 months later those same independents voted in a knee-jerk reaction for Brown in Massachusetts, and why others tell pollsters they are unhappy with the president.  They see the tea baggers complaining about big government and liberals so they go along.  


Like Homer Simpson (sorry for the insult Homer), there is literally nothing in their heads, no ideology or values - outside of a love for doughnuts and shitty beer - so they go with the loudest and last voice they hear.  Instead of stupid or dilettante I guess DEpendent is more appropriate.  But they are NOT independent.