Anyone who missed Obama’s Q&A session with Republicans last week should check it out, if only for the laughs. Obama, cool and wry, crushes Republican talking point after talking point, and leaves the GOP wishing it had never agreed to allow the session to be nationally televised.

If this had occurred a year ago I might’ve been impressed. But not anymore. We all know that Obama is a masterful rhetorician, capable of making most people who challenge him look foolish. But in all honesty, running circles around the ignoramuses who currently populate the Republican Party is essentially child’s play.

The real test of Obama’s leadership is not whether he can win arguments, but whether he can win Congressional votes and get his agenda passed. And while there were some significant victories in his first year, none of his signature priorities—healthcare reform, financial reform, and cap and trade—have made it to his desk. There is a chance that all three could pass in some form, but it’s more likely that all three will fail. This would be catastrophic not only for the country, but for the Democratic Party.

I question whether Obama and his team are doing everything they can to push Congress to act, but all of us need to do our part as well. It’s time for letter writing, phone calls, and emails, in that order of importance.

Here’s a summary of the key players to contact:

For healthcare reform

1. Your two senators - urge them to fix the recently passed Senate bill through reconciliation so that the House can pass it

2. Your congressman/woman - urge them to pass the Senate bill as soon as the Senate makes the necessary fixes

3. Senator Harry Reid - urge him to push reconciliation as the solution to the healthcare impasse

4. Congressman Tom Perriello and Congresswoman Betsy Markey - applaud them for their bill to repeal the anti-trust exemption for health insurance companies, which is an attempt to get the process rolling again, and urge them to propose more bills in this vein

For Financial Regulatory Reform

1. Senator Chris Dodd - urge the senator not to water down his financial regulatory reform package and to force Republicans to go on record either for it or against it

2. Senator Harry Reid - urge him to bring the strongest possible bill to the floor

3. Your two senators - urge them not to accept anything but a strong bill

For Cap and Trade

1. Your two senators - urge them to vote only for a comprehensive energy bill that includes mandatory and significant greenhouse gas emissions reductions

2. Senators Graham, Lieberman, and Kerry - urge them to put forth their proposal in its entirety and not let it get watered down (this is an instance in which a Republican senator and a turncoat Democrat are actually playing a constructive role)

And contact your friends and family and urge them to do the same!

P.S. In the long-term this is what needs to happen.

Jason Scorse

A decent cap and trade bill.

A near universal healthcare plan with a strong public option.

Relatively strong financial regulatory reform with a new Consumer Protection Agency.

All these are center-left pieces of legislation. And all of them have passed….the House of Representatives, where majority rule operates. The House also best reflects the will of the people because its members face the voters every two years.

The Senate, undemocratic by design, is the reason none of the above bills has made it to President Obama’s desk. To get the Constitution ratified, the Founding Fathers gave small states the same number of senators as large states; it was not done for reasons of principle. A majority of 51 senators could easily represent 65% of the population if most of the large coastal and Midwestern states are included—which means, in fact, that a simple majority in the Senate can easily mean a supermajority of the American people. States like North Dakota have so few people that they have more senators (two) than representatives (one), and yet they hold tremendous sway over legislation affecting hundreds of millions.

But today’s situation, in which a filibuster-proof 60 senators are required to pass anything at all—the first time this has regularly been the case in U.S. history—means that a super supermajority is always needed: senators representing close to 75% of the population. Think how truly staggering this is: no other advanced democracy needs anything like this to pass legislation. No wonder we’re at a virtual standstill in the Senate.

We live in a center-left nation, but we’re stuck with institutions that allow reactionary forces to control the legislative process. While it can be argued that some supermajority requirements were built into the Constitution, there is no Constitutional requirement for 60 votes in the Senate; a simple majority of 51 should be able to pass all bills.

Which brings us to tradition.

The Constitution permits the Senate to make its own rules, and the filibuster was adopted in close to its current form in the first half of the 20th century (though it’s never been abused as it is today). The Founding Fathers would probably be aghast at the idea of filibuster, and would absolutely be aghast at how frequently it’s used.

While the Republicans deserve the contempt of the American people for abusing this procedural measure, their conduct is predictable; they’re no longer a serious political party, they’re a refuge for ideologues and fanatics completely divorced from reality.

Ultimately, the blame resides with the Democrats. They squandered many months of a filibuster-proof majority, and amazingly topped it off by losing Ted Kennedy’s senate seat.

Even now, with 59 senators, they have more seats than when Obama took office (58), and many avenues to pursue their agenda. They need only 51 votes to use reconciliation (the process Bush used for both of his tax cuts); this could be put to use quickly to modify the healthcare bill so that the House would pass the Senate’s version. This is simply a must. Anything short of this would be a political and moral disaster: the Democrats spent almost a year on healthcare reform, and the need grows every day. Failure to pass a comprehensive bill would be a betrayal of the American people, especially the Democratic base who worked so hard to get so many elected.

The Senate can also bring to the floor the rest of the House agenda, including stringent financial regulatory reform, and force the GOP legislators to vote against it (instead of watering it down to attract one or two stray Republicans). If the GOP filibusters, Democrats can bring the bill to the floor again and invite the news media in. Make headlines about how 59 Senators are trying to rein in the banks, combat global warming, and create a citizenship path for 12 million illegal immigrants, but 41 Republicans are standing in the way of an up or down vote. People need to see the abuse that’s going on.

In addition, the White House could do a lot better job messaging. It was excellent that the President addressed GOP obstructionism in his State of the Union speech, but the argument needs to be made more directly. The American people need to know that Obama’s agenda has already made it through one branch of the Congress, and is being held up by minorities who won’t let democracy work. People should be urged to call, email and write key senators who could overturn these roadblocks.

Institutions change only through struggle; they never evolve solely on their own. In this vein, some of the next pieces on VoR will point to contacts and initiatives that can help us break the gridlock.

It’s time for the center-left agenda that America voted for to be enacted. We tried the hard right agenda in the Bush years and it failed, miserably. It’s time for a new direction. If that direction fails, voters can once again choose a different course. First, it needs to be given a chance.

Jason Scorse

The nightmare happened: A Tea Party know-nothing who opposes national healthcare reform (but says he’s OK with Massachusetts’ near universal coverage) has replaced Ted Kennedy, who fought for healthcare all his life, in the bluest state in the nation.

There are two roads for the Democrats at this juncture.

One is to fall into panic mode, drop everything they’ve worked on all year, and play defense for the rest of 2010; basically, do whatever they can on jobs and the economy. This would be electoral suicide, plus a 100% betrayal of the people who worked so hard to get them elected. With huge majorities in Congress, holding the White House, to squander this opportunity would be unforgivable. Even more relevant: the policies they campaigned on and worked on all this time are centrist and pragmatic, and popular with the American people (when framed properly, and not subject to months of Republican lies).

The other option is for Democrats to answer this wake-up call by fighting even harder for what they believe in—to realize that weakness at this juncture would be the absolute worst message they could send to the electorate and to their base. The House could pass the Senate’s version of the healthcare bill right away and send it to the President to sign. Through budget reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes, the Senate could then make modifications in line with some House requests. Just like that, we would get a healthcare bill that includes a real public option and greater subsidies for those who need them.

On financial regulatory reform, the Senate could put together a strong bill and dare the Republicans to vote against it. It would include the Consumer Protection Agency and a tax on bank windfall profits. The framing would be perfect for the Democrats: since the Republicans have claimed the mantle of populist rage, a vote against reining in the bankers would yield huge political dividends. If Republicans succeed in killing the bill with a filibuster, parts of it could still be passed through reconciliation; in addition, Obama could use his powers as chief executive to do a lot through the Treasury Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On the environmental front, Democratic senators are already saying that the cap and trade bill is dead. Obama has the authority through the EPA to enact tough greenhouse gas regulations, and he should exercise that authority. There are some in the academic community who think this is a better approach than a weak cap and trade bill.

The Democrats could also push immigration reform, again daring the Republicans to vote against it and further alienate the growing Hispanic communities in key swing states. On gay rights, Congress could repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and the President through executive order could strike down Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Bottom line: If the Democrats show some fight they can turn this around. Their loss this past week would then turn into a blessing in disguise.

Unfortunately, the early word out of Washington seems to indicate that Democrats are inclined to show the country how spineless they are. If so, then the party from Obama on down does not deserve to govern and does not deserve the country’s support.

This is a moment of truth, a moment of reckoning, and the stakes couldn’t be higher. Democrats can choose to snatch defeat from the jaws of their 2008 victory, or show some fortitude and get the job done. It’s their choice.

P.S. I called every office of my senators and congressman and urged them to fight or that I would never give them a penny again or volunteer for Democratic campaigns. I urge people to do the same.

Jason Scorse

It could be a horror story for the Democrats: on Tuesday, within weeks of getting healthcare through the Senate, Ted Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts might fall into the hands of a Tea Party Republican—putting not only healthcare reform in jeopardy, but everything on Obama’s agenda during this all-important election year. We’ll have political chaos if it comes to pass, emboldening the far right and throwing progressives into a prolonged era of soul-searching.

The question everyone should be asking is how we got to this point. I offer three reasons:

1. Obama and the Democratic leadership have not been aggressive enough.

Obama and the Democratic establishment have tried to play nice with Republicans, touting the benefits of bipartisanship and avoiding strong language to describe the GOP. Months were spent courting Olympia Snowe on healthcare, only to see her thumb her nose even when the bill met all her requirements. Obama rarely called out Republicans for their obstructionism and other outrageous antics.

This conciliatory posture has deflated rank and file Democratic voters, who fought hard for the 2008 mandate and want their leaders to stop making overtures to a party bent on their destruction. Obama and party leaders have also shied away from strong moral language, instead relying on more cerebral arguments. While they’re sensible and just, they don’t excite the passions. The enthusiasm gap between the parties is not hard to understand.

In addition, the priority given to healthcare pushed many other progressive issues aside, e.g., gay rights and immigration reform, disappointing large parts of the Democratic left.

2. The expectations of the Democratic base

While Obama and other party leaders are partly responsible for the deflated attitude among rank and file Democrats, these same activists can also blame their own unrealistic expectations. The notion that Obama would simply roll into Washington and usher in a new progressive era was naïve; change doesn’t happen that fast on the Beltway.

Similarly, there is a bizarre disconnect among many Democrats between the disappointment they feel and the reality of what Obama is on the edge of accomplishing. Getting healthcare reform through Congress would be such an achievement that if he never passed another significant piece of legislation, his presidency would be one of the most consequential ever.

But Obama has done more. He passed a major stimulus bill that brought us back from the economic brink and includes hundreds of billions for infrastructure and green energy. He passed the Fair Pay Act that bans gender pay discrimination. The House has passed significant financial regulatory reform and climate change legislation that the Senate will take up shortly. And through executive order, Obama has vastly improved government transparency and trimmed government waste. He also nominated the first Hispanic to the Supreme Court, and has been relatively successful on the foreign policy front.

So while there’s much to criticize and much left to do, the Democratic base should appreciate all that’s already been done. It should whet their appetite for the years ahead.

3. The media’s kid-glove treatment of the Tea Party movement

The so-called Tea Party movement has found a soft touch in the mainstream media. I’ve paid close attention these past couple of months, and it’s clear that the movement is a hodgepodge of misguided populism, white resentment, and a big dose of lunacy—all of which makes it incoherent, outrageous, and often despicable. What do the media do? They lap it up and let the Tea Partiers spew it out.

Many Tea Party leaders have no political background, little or no education, and are often used as pawns by established Republican figures (such as Dick Armey, whose group Freedomworks has been heavily involved in the Tea Party’s fight against healthcare reform).

The movement’s focus on deregulation as a cure for America’s economic woes is particularly striking. Tea Party activists make the populist argument that deregulation will lead to more competition, but the reality is just the opposite: there is nothing that big business would love more than a new wave of deregulation.

The media should be doing its job, exposing Tea Partiers for what they really are—a toxic threat to the body politic and the public interest. Instead, Tea Party activists get major and largely deferential coverage. In possibly the most egregious example, Tom Ashbrook (my favorite NPR commentator) devoted his entire hour-long show to the movement and never challenged numerous outrageous statements. For instance, after one leader likened Obama’s universal healthcare to Nazism, Ashbrook just cut to a commercial—never even questioning this vile claim.

As Paul Krugman notes, the media seems so cowed by charges of liberal bias that if a rightwinger should claim the earth is flat, the media will invite in another panelist to argue why the earth is round. This has got to stop.

In summary, the American body politic is in big trouble. Hopefully, Coakley will win in Massachusetts on Tuesday—and we’ll all have had a wake-up call to get more serious in the days and months ahead.

Jason Scorse

I have a confession to make: the rightwing demagogues who complain about liberal bias in the media are right.

How else to explain the fact that the traditional media outlets are packed each and every week with Republicans and so-called conservatives unleashing torrents of mindless nonsense?

Like Dana Perino, Bush’s former Press Secretary, and Rudy Giuliani, each claiming that no terrorist attacks occurred on Bush’s watch; like Dick Cheney and his minions in Congress, whose brilliant critique of Obama’s approach to terrorism is that he doesn’t use the word “terrorism” enough, or pound his chest and snarl into the camera.

And Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, must be a secret plant by the New York Times and the Nation magazine; no real GOPer could be so consistently stupid, and use his position for little more than personal enrichment and merriment. It’s obviously all part of a sinister liberal plot to make the Republicans look bad, as real Republicans would never vote for a Chairman who knows nothing about policy.

Of course, we can’t forget Sarah Palin. Only a liberal-leaning media would devote so much airtime to a person whose grasp of even the most basic issues is approximately at a first-grade level. By homing in on Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, the media is doing everything in its power to tarnish the reputation of the Grand Old Party. The media elites probably meet in back rooms every week, conspiring to pay attention only to the most depraved and ignore all the intelligent Republican voices. These victims of liberal bias must be plotting as we speak to retake the airwaves and show the country how serious and balanced real conservatives truly are.

So stay tuned. Today’s Sunday talk shows will surely be filled, as they are every Sunday, by disgraced former Republican office-holders, or by those currently in office who have little to no power, or maybe if we’re lucky, Dick Cheney’s daughter, who has never met a lie or distortion that she doesn’t like. They will utter nonsense and deception, all of which will go unchallenged by the talking heads, giving them every incentive to out-crazy themselves next week.

No doubt about it. It’s those sneaky liberals fault, force-feeding the American public a steady diet of propaganda from the far right that will forever sour them on the Republican brand.

Jason Scorse

Many eulogies have already been written for the worst decade in the post-WW II era, and we had better learn from the past if we do not want to repeat the same mistakes. The stakes couldn’t be higher: another decade like the last could permanently erode American power and prosperity.

There’s plenty of blame to go around, but the crises of the past 10 years center around five distinct episodes of collective insanity.

First came the dotcom bubble at the start of the decade. During the rise of the NASDAQ, companies with little or no revenue were selling at price-to-earnings ratios that defied all economic logic. The subsequent crash would not have been nearly as devastating if millions of average investors hadn’t dumped most or all of their retirement savings into tech stocks, trying to ride the bull market to riches.

This violated one of the key principles of investing: don’t make high risk bets when you are close to retiring. The trillions in savings wiped out during this episode disrupted the plans of millions of Americans, many of whom have yet to recover.

The second bout of collective insanity was the housing boom, where again millions of Americans were convinced that the laws of gravity no longer applied. Enticed by record low interest rates, and encouraged by supposedly knowledgeable economists, Americans from all walks of life took part in a frenzy akin to the Dutch tulip craze of the 1600s. (As someone who has recently been shopping for a house, it’s astonishing to see the absurdly inflated values that people paid for homes just a few years ago.)

Because of its impact on construction and the toll that it took on consumer spending, the housing crash would likely have caused a severe recession under any scenario. But it would not have led the world to the brink of a financial meltdown if home mortgages hadn’t been securitized, sliced and diced, and sold in the derivatives markets at insane leverage ratios.

This was the third episode, and it’s especially striking. Here were the very people who are supposed to be experts in financial markets—hotshot PhDs from the world’s top schools and CEOs paid scores of millions to manage risk—making bets premised on completely unrealistic and unsustainable assumptions. It boggles the mind that so much money was put on the line in ways that most people didn’t even understand.

The fourth instance of insanity happened between the dotcom bust and the housing bubble: the public response to 9/11. Faced with the terror of that day and the graphic nature of its violence, America slipped into a period of extreme paranoia. We unwisely elevated a relatively small band of cave dwellers to the level of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. As a consequence we proceeded to mismanage not one but two wars, the second of which was completely unrelated to the threat posed by the jihadists. During this dark period, the press corps became sycophants for an Administration that used fear and hyperbole to pursue its radical agenda.

This led to the fifth bout of collective insanity: the “re-election” of George Bush in 2004. By this time it was clear that Bush was not only incompetent, but intellectually unfit for the challenges America faced. His Administration was marked by a level of cronyism and politicization almost unparalleled in modern American history. No matter how poor a candidate was Kerry, a vote for Bush was a vote to reward failure. Bush didn’t disappoint, leaving America in shambles.

In many ways, the election of Barack Obama was not only a repudiation of the Bush decade; it also represented a yearning for a more reasoned and cool-headed approach to the world. So far Obama has done a good job of creating a more stable economic climate, and projecting a sense of calm. While many in the traditional media foolishly criticize his cerebral approach to the issues, it’s exactly what the country needs.

But no nation can rely on its leader alone. Americans must look within themselves, and recognize their own contributions to the messes that we created over the last 10 years. Only them will we be able to resist the pull of the irrational forces that will surely tempt us once again.

Jason Scorse

Despite Barack Obama’s ability to win over independents and Republicans during the 2008 election, his efforts to create a less polarized political culture have proven futile. Paul Krugman, who witnessed the vicious partisanship aimed at Bill Clinton during the 1990s, was one of the first to recognize that no amount of Obama’s rhetoric, star power, or even common sense would compel Republicans to take the nation’s problems seriously. He saw that today’s GOP is wedded to a scorched earth strategy in which ideology trumps all.

He was right.

I thought, given Obama’s huge mandate, the Republicans would give him at least a six-month honeymoon period; they didn’t give him six minutes. On Inauguration Day the rightwing noise machine went into full gear, claiming that Obama wasn’t a citizen and that he was bent on marching America towards socialism. The same people who didn’t make a sound when Bush turned a trillion dollar surplus into a five trillion dollar deficit suddenly became concerned about government debt.

Who cares that the worst thing to do during a recession is to reduce government spending? Who cares that Obama’s healthcare reform will actually reduce the deficit and begin to control long term healthcare costs? In the fantasy world of today’s Republicans, white is black and up is down. Facts have no place, only death panels and forced abortions.

It is clear that one of the two major parties has given up any pretense at seriousness; it’s clear that we face a situation in which only more and better Democrats can get the job done.

We don’t have six months to waste trying to get Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins to vote for a bill they will ultimately find some lame excuse to oppose. We don’t have time to negotiate with people who deny the existence of global warming. And we certainly shouldn’t cut a deal with a Republican Party that thinks Wall Street and the financial system don’t need more regulation.

Obama brought into office the hope of a “post-partisan” America, but that dream has been dashed. Reality-based Republicans may one day regain control of their party from the know-nothings and fanatics, but that is a long way off at best.

While the spirit of cooperation has been integral to Obama’s message and brand, it would be best for him now to admit that he made a mistake—to admit that at this juncture bipartisanship is simply not possible. It would show the country that he’s more interested in outcomes than process, that his only priority is what’s best for the American people. He should distill his message to specific policy principles and values, and make clear that he will work with anyone who shares them. If this happens to be only Democrats, so be it.

Let’s make the next decade a true battle of ideas and values, pitting those of reason, fairness, and justice against those of deceit, religious zealotry, and cronyism. I am confident Americans will choose the former.

It will be easier for them to do so if we jettison the calls for bipartisanship, and make the distinctions between the parties as sharp as night and day—as sharp in fact as they really are.

P.S. It seems as if the Obama Administration is finally starting to make just the shift described above.

Jason Scorse

Politicians are among the most despised people in America, right behind Wall Street bankers and lawyers. While many live unscrupulous lives and/or abuse their political power, it is worth taking a moment to reflect on, and honor, the efforts of those who fight for the public interest. It is an opportune moment to do so: after months of wrangling, the Democrats have apparently arrived at a healthcare compromise that has the necessary 60 votes in the Senate and a good chance of winning final approval.

Senators like Chuck Schumer, Sherrod Brown and Ron Wyden, and Representatives like Nancy Pelosi and Anthony Weiner, have worked tirelessly to fashion a piece of legislation that has eluded previous Congresses and presidents for decades, including the last Democratic president. They battled powerful interest groups with hundreds of billions on the line. They weren’t able to win some big battles, and they produced a far from perfect bill; but with no room for error, they got the job done against an obstructionist Republican Party, fake populist outages, and religious zealots (to mention just some of the obstacles).

The bottom line is that these legislators (and dozens more unnamed) have overcome tough odds and deserve our respect. I am confident they will work hard to improve the bill once it finally passes, so that its final form more closely approaches the ideals the progressives have long championed.

I am sure that these Senators and Representatives enjoy their work, and they’re compensated fairly (the average salary is approximately $175,000 with great benefits), so they hardly need any praise from us. Nevertheless, it takes only a moment to recognize how extremely difficult politics is: while it’s unlikely that anybody in Congress understands everything that’s in the 1,300-page healthcare bill, it’s surprising how sophisticated and detailed their knowledge actually is. Some have been working on the issues for decades, have spent thousands of hours studying them, and really know what they’re talking about.

Which brings us to the GOP.

When it comes to healthcare, the Republicans morphed from the party of “no” to the party of know-nothing. From “death panels” to “forced abortion” to charges of socialism, the GOP did little more than lie and deceive throughout the healthcare debate. (Take a moment to watch this video of last week’s “prayer meeting,” in which top GOP politicians joined a right-wing group in asking god’s help to derail healthcare legislation; compare this, if you will, to the relentlessly serious efforts of the Democratic caucus.)

While a few Republican senators made reasonable suggestions to improve the bill, the GOP strategy by and large was a despicable display of politics at its most cynical. The GOP voted unanimously against the stimulus package, last week voted unanimously against a new jobs bill and financial regulatory reform (more on this next week), and now stands ready to vote unanimously against healthcare reform.

So while the healthcare bill gives progressives plenty of reasons to be disappointed and frustrated, they should take a moment to respect all that’s been achieved so far.

And everyone, regardless of political persuasion, should recognize that only one political party in America right now is actively addressing the real problems that America faces—the Democrats.

P.S. I was obviously wrong about the opt-out public option making it into the final healthcare bill. I underestimated how truly small a man Joe Lieberman is, and underestimated the intransigence of Ben Nelson. The opt-out was (and still is) brilliant politics and I thought it would be hard to argue against it since states were not compelled to participate. Again, I was wrong. But don’t be surprised in the coming months and years to see some form of public option re-emerge through the reconciliation process, and if so it will likely be stronger than the version once contained in the Senate bill.

Jason Scorse

Ever since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party and the Left in general have been ambivalent about military conflict. For good reason: in Vietnam, millions of innocent people and nearly 60,000 American soldiers were killed in a conflict that scarred a generation. Ever since, Republicans and the Right have eagerly embraced the mantle of being the “tough” party, ready and willing to use military force to protect U.S. interests.

In some ways, with his engagement in the Balkans which many on the Right decried, Bill Clinton challenged this portrayal of the Left as pacifists. But 9/11 and Bush’s invasion of Iraq once again divided the Left and united the Right, solidifying its pro-military stance.

Obama declared during the 2008 campaign that he did not oppose all wars, only “dumb” wars; he used Afghanistan as an example of a just conflict and Iraq as a misguided one. Anyone surprised by his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan wasn’t paying attention, since he was clear that he considered that war a cause worth sacrificing for.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (which I highly recommend watching in its entirety), Obama thoroughly and clearly laid out his vision of foreign policy and the use of force. It was one of his best speeches, and it presents the Democrats and the Left with a sober and honest assessment of the necessity of violence to prevent even worse violence, and the limitations of reason in a world in which madmen seek to sow chaos and destruction.

Obama mentions that just wars can sometimes be fought on humanitarian grounds (for instance, to prevent genocide) even if they violate state sovereignty and the doctrine of self-defense. At the same time, his worldview is closer to the realist school than some of his supporters might realize. Nowhere in his Afghanistan speech did Obama mention women’s rights, or the human rights atrocities that occur daily under the Taliban; his rationale for escalation was framed solely in terms of U.S. interests. Ironically, George Bush stressed the promotion of human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan more than Obama.

This brings me to a talk by Christopher Hitchens at the Commonwealth Club this past fall (which I also recommend viewing in its entirely). Hitchens describes the depravity and evil of the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein, and similar episodes in North Korea and Iran. It’s truly chilling to listen to his accounts of life in these oppressive states.

One can oppose the Iraq War (as I did), and still wonder whether no more justification was needed to invade Iraq than the evil of the man who ruled it. If the Left is going to be serious about peace, it needs to be serious about those who stand in the way of peace. And while we should never be cavalier about conflict in which civilians are sure to be killed, the Left must define the parameters under which it believes the use of force is justified.

As Obama mentioned in Oslo, non-violence and diplomacy would not have stopped Hitler and they won’t stop Al Qaeda. The extreme belligerence of the Bush-Cheney Administration, with its disdain for diplomacy and embracing of torture, should be avoided, but what should take its place? Obama has offered the Left a new vision of just war, but it may not go far enough. If the Left’s new foreign policy is nothing more than the realist school in new clothing, then how to justify more forceful intervention in Sudan, the Congo, or Burma?

There are no easy answers, but at least Obama has gotten the conversation started. Those who oppose his escalation in Afghanistan (and his ramped-up drone attacks in Pakistan) need to articulate their own vision.

The post-Vietnam era has shown us what happens when the Left only puts forth a pacifist vision; it is rejected by the American people, and gives an opening to the worst elements on the Right.

Jason Scorse

While the success of most Administrations correlates highly with the unemployment rate, presidents, ironically, have relatively little control over the economy.

George W. Bush inherited a recession flowing from the dot.com bust of 2000, and the economy promptly took another major hit following 9/11. Bush’s Federal Reserve Chief Alan Greenspan then proceeded to lower interest rates and kept them low for way too long, oblivious to the gathering housing bubble. Bush also went wrong in stacking the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) with people enamored with deregulation, and either unable or uninterested in reining in the gross irregularities taking place in the derivatives market.

In addition, Bush’s signature domestic initiatives were tax cuts for the rich; these dramatically increased the deficit (which became Obama’s to deal with) and did little to stimulate the economy. Bush also failed to make any significant investments in green energy and prevented federal funds from being used for stem cell research, thus retarding these industries.

As a result President Obama inherited the worst economy since the recessions and stagflation of the 70s and early 80s. Unemployment would top 10% before the end of his first year in office. None of this was really his doing; nevertheless, as he predicted, in the public mind he’s become responsible for the current economic conditions.

During the past year the Federal Reserve has kept interest rates at essentially zero percent and flooded the financial system with hundreds of billions in order to prevent a crisis and a repeat of the Great Depression. New financial regulations making their way through Congress could do a lot to prevent another crisis in the future, but they have nothing to do with today’s jobs picture.

Obama was able to pass a massive fiscal stimulus plan in his first weeks in office, and he’s now expected to announce new jobs initiatives in the coming weeks. From all estimates his policies have prevented the loss of around one million jobs, but they have not led to a net jobs increase. Obama has also laid the groundwork for long-term employment by investing in green technology and new infrastructure, and by easing restrictions on stem cell research.

Due to luck as much as anything, the jobs picture is apparently improving faster than anyone had predicted; last Friday’s surprising Labor Department report showed that the economy lost only 11,000 jobs this past November, reducing the unemployment rate from 10.2% to 10%. If the trend continues and job growth turns positive in the coming months, it would be a huge plus for American workers and a tremendous political boon for Obama and the Democrats.

The lesson, for all presidents, is that with so little direct influence over the economy, they had better use wisely what little leverage they have. While Bush was not responsible for the initial conditions during his first term, he did nothing to shore up the economy and wasted trillions on regressive fiscal policies. Obama inherited an economy that could easily consume his presidency and his ambitions, but he acted aggressively with all of the levers of his power and it may well be paying off.

Jason Scorse