Commentary

I have a lot of little bits today.

Abortion part 62: Question Answered?

I guess I am who New Age Democrat has in mind when he says abortion is a "fixation." Or perhaps I am just staying on top of what is an ongoing debate in the party over abortion rights. New Donkey and Kevin Drum about a potential wedge issue for Democrats on the abortion issue. They suggest we emphasize birth control as a way to reduce the number of abortions. They believe that there are a heck of a lot of "pro-life" people who would accept this as a meaningful approach, while on the other hand it would be accepted by the pro-choicers. I think this is a very promising idea. I remember thinking that when the morning after pill came out, it could totally change the abortion debate. So maybe this is the correct way to re-frame the issue without changing the substance. I need to think it over more, but it's a hopeful sign.

On a related note, this is a worrisome comment by Bull Moose. Not that he is in favor of a pro-life candidate because he has the best chance to win. That's fine - I certainly don't believe we should run anti-choice people out of the party. But what I wasn't aware of is that Bull Moose himself is pro-life. This changes the character of his advice a bit. If he were pro-choice and suggesting a modification of Democrats' stance on abortion, then it looks like sensible tactical analysis. But when someone who is anti-choice himself suggests such a change, it makes me worry that his advice is part of a hidden agenda to transform the party. Now I don't want to poison the well, and we should continue to take what Moose says seriously. But it does give me pause, and will likely give more than pause to others.

The Election Mystery

Abramowitz has an apparent solution to my query yesterday. It turns out that moderates did support Bush 54-46, which accounts for his victory given higher Democratic turnout. I suppose that the exit polls indicated self-identified moderates, while the NES study places voters objectively by asking them for their issue positions. So it looks like we have a lot of self-identified conservatives who are really moderates, and a lot of self-identified moderates who are really liberals. Interesting.

What continues to bother me is the believability of Abramowitz's NES-based conclusion. The election last fall looked like a turnout war in which Rove focused on conservatives and Democrats reached out to the middle. Now we are supposed to think that what really happened was that Bush won the middle while Kerry rallied his base? This just doesn't accord with the election I saw. Something remains fishy here.

Wal-Mart

An op-ed by Eugene Robinson in the Washington Post defends Wal-Mart to a certain extent. He says that yes, Wal-Mart is supposed to be evil and all. But then we tend to forget that working class people have to shop at Wal-Mart because they are economically stressed. They really do provide the best deal in town.

It is conventional to focus on the consumer when defending Wal-Mart, but Robinson fails to understand that the reason that people have to shop at Wal-Mart is because companies like Wal-Mart prevent them from shopping anywhere else. He fails to mention that the primary causes for middle class economic pressure is that their incomes have not gone up in thirty years, in large part because companies like Wal-Mart pit them against 3rd world labor, break up unions, and give no benefits. They have perverted Henry Ford's dictum that you need to pay your workers enough to buy your product by reducing their employees (and others) to the point where they can ONLY buy their product.

Robinson is doing something like exculpating a pimp because his whores want to work him to get our of poverty. Hey, why don't we do something about the circumstances that forced such a choice in the first place? What a crazy idea!

The Block-Grant fiasco

The Norquist master plan is well-advanced. In the 1990's, they transformed a bunch of federal programs into block grants to the states in the name of state flexibility. Now they are cutting block grants and loosening requirements so they can do away with those programs. This is classic right-wing two-step. Don't oppose social welfare spending in principle, instead shift the responsibility to the states. Then you just zero out the program or let the states do it. What we will never see is a forthright argument that we should ditch medicare or medicaid. Americans will just wake up one morning and it will be gone.

Brooks

Last by not least, we pay a visit to Mr. Brooks' Neighborhood. In today's episode, Brooks joins liberals in decrying giant deficits. He talks with passion and eloquence about the burden being placed on young people for the benefit of their parents and grand-parents. Has Brooks joined the cause? Of course not. Because at the end of his article there is "the turn." The solution to this problem is Social Security Privatization! Apparently Brooks has not gotten the memo on the fact that the Bush privatization plan a) doesn't deal with the funding problem, and b) would require lots of new borrowing. And you might not have noticed how he fails to ascibe any blame for the deficits after he talks about Social Security, where he underhandedly shifts blame to the Dems for opposing privatization.

Has Brooks forgotten how we got into this fiscal whole in the first place? It was the stupid tax cuts four years ago - without them we would be running at balance. If Al Gore had been elected, excuse me, had been allowed to take office, four years ago, we wouldn't be having this problem.

It really is frustrating when someone begs to get help for a problem they created. Frankly if a crazy neighbor gambles his life savings away and then wants me to loan him money so he can win it back, I am not going to give him the cash. I am going to call someone to get him help.