Over at Mother Jones, Julian Sanchez provided an overview of what’s going on with the most recent case of the Obama administration going after whistleblowers. It is very hard not to accept the most intense critics’ contention that this is not about national security or even embarrassment. This is about creating an environment in which people who see government wrongdoing feel that they can’t go to the press.

One of the best examples of this is former NSA executive Thomas Andrews Drake who blew the whistle on the wasteful and unconstitutional Trailblazer Project. Drake did all that he was supposed to in terms of trying to take care of the matter internally. And then, when that didn’t work, he went to the press. As usual, he was being gone after under the Espionage Act of 1917—clearly an outrageous use of the law. And they didn’t even charge him with distributing classified documents. Instead, they changed him with “Willful Retention of National Defense Information.” That’s right: he held onto documents. In the end, all the government got was a “misdemeanor of misusing the agency’s computer system.”

But the issue there wasn’t to get him. It was to stop people like him in the future. And now the situation has gotten even worse. Now it seems that the administration is going after Fox News reporter James Rosen. Again, I doubt they mean to get him or even prosecute him. But as Sanchez pointed out, “The Rosen case is especially unsettling because the warrant affidavit suggests that Rosen himself could be subject to prosecution under the Espionage Act, on the grounds that his alleged encouragement to a source to provide classified information amounted to ‘conspiracy.'”

Most reporters won’t even risk angering a White House source for fear of losing “access.” So there is no doubt that the threat of a night raid by the FBI, not to mention years in prison, will turn the few remaining investigative journalists into pundits. This all looks very much like a full court press against the Fourth Estate. It is very troubling. And this scandal, really does reach to the president; he’s the one who sets the policies.

Afterword

Sanchez ended his article arguing that people really should care about this issue because the government isn’t always just trying to protect the national security. I think this came off as rather naive. It is almost never the case that documents are classified for good reasons. I would be shocked if even 5% of all classified documents were justified. It is mostly just a matter of protecting reputations and a blind drive to make everything secret. That way, the power elite know that they’re important: they get access to these files and the rest of us do not. It’s pathetic.

Poet Alexander Pope was born in 1688. He is best known for not being Pope Alexander. In fact, since Pope burst onto the English literary scene in the earth 18th century, the Vatican has stopped naming popes Alexander. The last such pope was Alexander VIII, who was born in 1610. I have no evidence that this is a direct result of policy. But really, if you became pope, would you want people screwing up your name? Perhaps if you were an evil pope. (Antipope?!) But even then, school children already have enough difficulties with Alexander Pope and all eight of the Pope Alexanders.

Prison reformer Elizabeth Fry was born in 1780. French primitive post-impressionist Henri Rousseau was born in 1844. Great stride pianist Fats Waller was born in 1904. Here he is doing his cowritten song “Ain’t Misbehavin'”:

The first female President of Ireland, Mary Robinson is 69 today. I am constantly amazed at these seriously Catholic countries. Ireland elected its first female president in 1990, where America is still waiting. Maybe “amazed” is not the word; “disappointed.” The man who always makes me feel like dancing, Leo Sayer is 65 today, so we won’t be hearing anymore from him. Comedian and pretty damned good Senator, Al Franken is 62. Judge Reinhold is 56. His name is “Judge”:

The day belongs to aviation pioneer, Glenn Curtiss who was born on this day back in 1878. He was at first a competitor and then a partner with the Wright Brothers, eventually creating the still extant Curtiss-Wright Corporation. He died suddenly at the age of 52 of appendicitis. Here is the summary from Wikipedia:

Happy birthday Glenn Curtiss!

After reading John Dean’s take on the recent scandals, I noticed that another of my favorite conservatives, Ramesh Ponnuru had waded into these waters, ‘Obama Scandals’ Could Actually Hurt Republicans. I love those scare quotes in the title. The truth is that these aren’t really Obama’s scandals, but it would be fair to call them Obama’s troubles.

The argument that Ponnuru made is a common one these days on the left: the Republicans might be overreaching on these issues. Coming from liberals, I’m unimpressed. Just like with the talk that the current scandals might turn out to involve Obama, the Republicans might overplay the scandals. The truth is that the Republicans don’t exactly need these scandals to overplay their hand. Regardless, this wasn’t Ponnuru’s main point.

The big comparison for everyone seems to be 1998. That was Bill Clinton’s sixth year. Clinton had been involved in a scandal regarding lying about an affair. The standard narrative is that the Republicans overplayed the scandal and ended up doing damage to themselves. It is widely believed that the president’s party loses lots of seats in Congress during the president’s sixth year in office (this is a myth). So when the Democrats picked up a couple of seats, everyone said it was because the Republicans angered the voters with all their focus on Cigar-Gate.

But Ponnuru showed that this wasn’t the case. Only 5% of the voters in 1998 were motivated by the sex scandal and most of them voted against Clinton. The real story was that the voters cared about the economy and education (As usual!) and they were very unhappy with where the Republicans were on these issues. Ponnuru argued that the current crop of Republicans is being equally out of touch. And the scandals are just making it worse on them because it is allowing them to focus on scandals that will likely come to nothing rather than pushing for real policy changes. As he put it, “They’re trying to win news cycles when they need votes.”

The only place I disagree with Ponnuru (and this is a running disagreement) is his belief that the conservative movement actually has policy ideas. I really don’t see this. They do have some ideas relative to current policy. For example, changes in Medicare will put limits on the few people currently using Medicare Advantage. But if the Republicans suddenly found themselves in charge of the federal government, what policies would they push? They would repeal Obamacare, but not replace it with anything. They would enact regressive tax cuts. And they would try to outlaw abortions. Basically, they would try to destroy the legacy of the New Deal onward. But none of these policies even claim to tackle the problems that our country faces.

So I continue to wonder why someone as smart as Ponnuru can continue to think that his movement has ideas for the future. I’m sure that there are conservative ideas out there. But the movement itself isn’t interested in them. The Republicans could rename their party the Anti-Democratic Party. That would be more honest. But Ponnuru is correct that they aren’t going to succeed as long as they think all they need to do is to destroy Obama. After all, Obama will never again run for office.

Over at Bloomberg View, I saw that John Dean had written an article, Obama’s Not Nixon, He’s Harding. I knew immediately what he was talking about: Teapot Dome. Normally, I would not have clicked through. But I really like John Dean, and I couldn’t believe that he was really comparing Obama’s scandals with Harding’s.

Not surprisingly, Dean did not disappoint me. He was making a totally reasonable argument. As usual. Most of the article is an attack on those who are comparing Obama’s troubles with Watergate. In particular, Dean is concerned about statements that have been made by Bob Woodward. Given that Woodward was such an important player in the Watergate scandal, and that he wrote a book about it with Carl Bernstein, one would think that he would have some perspective on it.

Dean was too nice to question Woodward’s motivations. But I’m not. Woodward seems to crave attention. Last year shortly after the Benghazi attack, he claimed that there was no scandal. But more recently, he has been trying to associate the talking point revisions between the State Department and the CIA to Nixon’s hacked tape transcripts. There is no similarity, especially when you consider that Obama was not involved at all. But Wordward really seems to have some kind of hard on for Obama—for now.

Dean’s comparison of Obama with Harding was just the most current chapter in Dean’s efforts to rehabilitate Harding’s reputation. He rightly notes that when Harding found out about Teapot Dome, he was outraged. He asked about it, and was lied to. Then he went on a “get in touch with the people” tour and died. Until fairly recently, he was blamed for the many scandals during his presidency. (They were more common back then.) Dean’s point is that regardless of the scandals going on now, there is no indication that they involve Obama.

What is perhaps ironic is that Dean is the writer of Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush. So Dean not only knows Watergate, he isn’t afraid to use it as a comparison. And remember: Dean is a conservative. Of course, at this point, that makes him about as conservative as Obama. Regardless, there really is nothing to these scandals regarding presidential malfeasance. Time will show that to be the case.

Yesterday, Cass R. Sunstein wrote an interesting article, How to Humble a Wing Nut. He reported on some research by Philip Fernbach at the University of Colorado. He found that by asking test subjects to write down everything they know about a controversial policy, he got them to moderate their views and lower their belief in how much they know about the subject. This isn’t a terribly surprising result, but it is nice to see it made concrete.

The problem is that I doubt that it is of much usefulness. Debates are all about not losing face. In the study, there is no face to lose. My experience writing about politics is that a lot of subjects turn into an inconclusive muddle the more you look at them. As a result, I tend to not write about them. That’s not because they aren’t important. It is just that I don’t have much to add to the debate. Similarly, that’s why I write a lot about economics: it is very clear. America has been off the rails, economically speaking, for so long that the major debates are nowhere near the margins where there is actual disagreement in the science.

The problem I have with Sunstein’s article is his position that the crazies are “out there” and the truth is the moderate position in the center. So his list of wingnut views is as follows:

I don’t agree with any of these position as stated. However, there is a great deal of fascist thought in the modern Republican Party, even if I have never claimed that the party itself is fascistic. Obama, like every other person in the world, has some socialistic leanings. The big banks don’t run the Department of the Treasury, but they have enormous power, both directly and indirectly. And the United States (like all countries) considers its own interest in all foreign affairs.

The fundamental issue is that the “center” or “moderate position” is not absolute. Bill O’Reilly would undoubtedly call me a “far left wing” writer. But in the context of most European countries, I would be center left, or even just center. The problem I have with the United States is that our politics have been so distorted. It no longer reflects what the people believe; it reflects the interests of the power elite. Sunstein is a reasonable man, but he is part of that elite and so it is natural for him to think that the middle of American politics is just right.

Regardless, I don’t think this study is going to be all that helpful. I’m going to give it a try, though. I like the idea of quizzing my debate partners. Even if it does them no good, it should help me to understand them. And despite my at time flaming rhetoric, I have a great deal of respect for those who will talk politics with me. My problem is with the propagandists and with people who can’t seem to get past that propaganda. But communication is always helpful.

I just got what is probably the best spam comment ever. It is postmodern! It is self referencing! It is gut bustingly funny!

Unfortunately, it is also just spam.

But it deserves attention. Ladies and Gentleman, I give you “ares gratis”:

He’s right about reading my blog, I get spam from him every day! And it usually asks for help of some kind. What blog software do I use? Well, it’s a secret; that’s why it is printed on every page of this website! But this is the first time that I noticed a spammer asking me about how to deal with spam. But let me answer the questions.

Yes, I do get a lot of spam remarks. The more popular my website gets, the more spam I get. I reduce it through a number of procedures. Surprisingly, the best procedure is just to require 30 seconds on a page before a comment is posted. That weeds out the vast majority of auto-spam. After that there are some other procedures, but I still have to hand filter a lot of spam. This is sad. It means that real people can’t comment right away all because a bunch of assholes are trying to game the search engines.

As for all the spam that is lately driving you crazy: fuck off!

About five years ago, I was talking to my father’s girlfriend Louise. She was a big Glenn Beck fan who died shortly before his implosion, so she never found out that the revolution would not, in fact, be televised. Obviously, I was used to some strange ideas coming out of her mouth. But one day she blew my mind by ranting about the evils of water fluoridation. Louise, of course, did not get this idea from Beck. He has long maintained that this issue is a joke—even ridiculing callers about it.

Louise had a friend who listened to Coast to Coast AM religiously. Its stock and trade is these kinds of quack theories. Another one I remembered was the idea that we were all being poisoned by aircraft contrails. (In graduate school, I did some work on the gases in these things; there is nothing to it, except that it can release large amounts of water into the high atmosphere.)

Conspiracy theories are not a right-left kind of thing. Most people who are very into them tend to live in a vague political world that is simultaneously left and right. But because most conspiracies depend either directly or indirectly on the government, there is an intense anti-authoritarian aspect to such people. I value that! Unfortunately, most of these people are easily manipulated. Look at the Tea Party groups: in the early days, they were definitely of this type. But over time, they found a very natural place in the Republican Party. Conspiracy theorists on the left don’t find a nice spot in the Democratic Party. Instead, they are socialists or much more commonly anarchists. But regardless of which side, there is a fair amount of crossover. For example, those on the right are often skeptical of corporations; those on the left are often skeptical about government actions like gun background checks.

This all comes to mind because today Portland, Oregon is voting whether to fluoridate their drinking water. Sadly, it is almost certainly going to lose. The Center for Disease Control has named fluoridated drinking water one of the Ten Great Public Health Achievements of the last century. So why is it going to lose? After all, Portland’s a fairly liberal city. Well, the truth is that when fluoridation is on a ballot, it usually loses. The 1990s is considered a great time for fluoridation advocates and they only won a bit more than half their fights then.

I think the problem is that most people don’t really care. They don’t have strongly held opinions on the matter. They don’t even know if their water is fluoridated or not. And they will never have direct knowledge of its benefits. How are they to know that their kids had half as many cavities as they would have had without it? On the other side, things are quite different. The anti-fluoridation folks are almost hysterical. So I think most people look at the situation and think: on the one hand, I don’t care; what’s more, the pro-fluoridation people don’t make major claims for it; on the other hand, the anti-fluoridation people think this is really terrible; so I’ll go along with them because there is a minor upside and potentially a very big downside.

This begs the question of why these anti-fluoridation people are so freaked out. There are actual concerns about fluoridation. There are health risks when it is taken at high levels. It is costly in a direct way (although the cost benefits far outweigh these). But these are primarily post hoc concerns. The anti-fluoridation forces are mostly concerned about the government forcing them to take medicines they don’t want. This is ridiculous, of course. You could as easily claim that the government is forcing you to drink clean water with all its nefarious sewage facilities.

If you look at the history of the anti-fluoridation movement, it is directly linked to the anti-communist movement. Dr. Stangelove lampooned this idea of an obsession with “precious bodily fluids.” But the fact is that there was (And is!) an obsession on the political margins with the idea of purity and the fear that evil forces are trying to pollute us. Interestingly, most of these people are not at all interested in real pollution threats. In Dr. Strangelove, Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper is not worried about nuclear fallout, but he only drinks distilled water:

Sandra Guerard is quoted over at Wonk Blog. She was a school teacher in the 1960s in Connecticut. She writes that, “During that period, opponents of fluoride painted swastikas on the doors of homes of physicians who supported adding fluoride to the water.” That is not rational behavior for what is, after all, just a public health debate.

If there are problems with concentration variation in fluoridated water, people could call for that to be fixed. If the current concentration is too high (it isn’t), people could call for it to be lowered. If fluoridation costs more than it saves, that should be demonstrated. But none of that is going on. Instead, we hear that fluoridation is bad and we just can’t have it. And that leads me to believe that although the public arguments have changed (No more: “Communist plot!”) the real arguments have not. It is still about purity and our “precious bodily fluids.”

But like Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, I have to admit that I’ve never seen a communist drink water.

I saw a charming tweet today concerning A. A. Milne’s excellent Winnie the Pooh books. I have a special fondness for those books. When I got my first group of networked computers, I named them after Pooh characters. Also, I think a whole theory of psychological types could be created based upon the characters. In fact, I used them to lampoon a few groups of people.

Apparently, I’m not alone in this. Untold Secrets tweeted the following over the weekend:

Although I like this very much, there are a number of problems. Most obviously, Kanga and Roo are nowhere to be seen. Of course, I always felt that those two were out of place in a boy’s fantasy world. They are the mother and child archetype and don’t add a great deal. I suppose they are helpful in adding a little stability to the rest of the crazy cast.

My favorite character has always been Piglet because he is a Very Small Animal. I had never particularly though about his anxiety, but undoubtedly that is another reason that I feel close to him. Many people think I’m manic-depressive and maybe I am. But the one thing that really bothers me is anxiety. It’s the one thing that I find debilitating at times.

The writer of the tweet is confused about Rabbit and Owl. Rabbit is the one with OCD. Owl is just a self-absorbed blowhard.

I have no problem with the diagnoses for Eeyore and Tigger. But I do mind the spelling! I suppose I can forgive the Eeyore error, but Tigger spells his own name: T-I-Double Ga-Er. Jeez!

As for Pooh being an addict, that’s right out! There is nothing wrong with Pooh; he is perfectly himself. He’s a bear; bears like Honey. (Tiggers don’t like honey!) The only reason anyone ever has a problem with Pooh is that they aren’t straightforward with him. If you want him to leave before he gets too fat to fit through your rabbit hole, just say so! Although, I admit, I’m more like Rabbit than Pooh in that regard.

What this all makes me think is that we have a tendency to medicalize behavior. All the Pooh characters are just great. If they were “normal” the books would be boring. And if people were normal, life would be boring.

What is it about French novelists making a career out of one novel that never ends? I don’t know. But on this day back in 1799, the great Honore de Balzac was born. Collectively called The Human Comedy, in consists of 91 essays, novels, and short stories. But he wasn’t done. It also included 46 unfinished works. People had a lot more time on their hands in those days. I am talking about the readers, of course. Balzac’s output was impressive for his 51 years, but not unheard of. He also wrote plays. At the age of 32, he started an 18 year courtship of Ewelina Hanska. It is one of the most romantic stories of all time. They finally married shortly before his 51st birthday. And then he got sick and died. Just like in one of his novels!

Inventor of the Gramophone record, Emile Berliner was born in 1851. Chess grandmaster Max Euwe was born in 1901. One of my least favorite actors, James Stewart was born in 1908. And co-founded of Hewlett-Packard, William Reddington Hewlett was born in 1913.

My last regular job was at a high tech start-up. Things were going well, but we ran out of money. The founder of the company was desperate. So he made a deal with a group of real estate investors. Soon, the founder was squeezed out and we all watched in awe as these glorified real estate agents took over and began dismantling the product we had spent years creating. This, understandably, led to low morale. I remember the top real estate agent once complained that everyone had gone home for the day. He commented to the beta agent, “No one went home before Hewlett and Packard when that company was starting out!” He was missing a few key points. First, they were both engineers. Second, in the beginning it was only them. Third, they didn’t go around destroying their employees’ work out of ignorance. The arrogance of those guys lives in my mind. From the moment they took over, they showed interest in nothing but asserting authority. And in the end, they got a company that was nothing more than a repackager for other products that doesn’t make money to this day. So much for their dreams of Hewlett-Packard.

Singer Joe Cocker is 69 today. Cher is 67. And comedian Dave Thomas is 64. Here he is as one of his standard characters, Bob Hope:

The day, however, belongs to John Stuart Mill who was born on this day in 1806. What I especially like about Mill is that he combined a passion for liberty and individualism with a practical nature. My problems with libertarianism is not so much the notion but how those who follow it take it to extreme without realizing their hidden assumptions. The truth is that any discussion of individual rights is very messy. There is no such thing as a pure political system, and that is perhaps more true of libertarianism than most other systems. I wish more libertarians would read him and give up the superman-worshiping sub-Nietzschean Ayn Rand.

Happy birthday John Stuart Mill!

I hate to find myself in the position of being an apologist for the government. But there is an important issue: by focusing on minor and even meaningless stories, we distract from very real issues. We have yet more news about our government’s attempts to keep the public ignorant and intimidate government whistleblowers. But what do we get? More coverage on the Inspector General’s report on the IRS: what did the president know and when did he know it?! Truly, the way the media are dealing with these scandals makes me think that the only training they’re received was a screening of All the President’s Men.

Think about this IRS scandal. Imagine that you were in charge of deciding which 501(c)(4) applications were approved. In order to be approved, the group must be primarily concerned with social welfare. And one year, you get deluged with applications with “Republican” in the names of the groups. “Republicans for Tax Fairness.” And “Republicans Against the Estate Tax.” And “Republicans for Barefoot and Pregnant Women.” You might think, maybe I should pay a little extra attention to these “Republican” groups.

As I wrote in Tea Party Myth, there is no Tea Party. There is just the Republican base that has managed to get the entire media system to accept its branding as though it were something distinct from the Republican Party. Everyone knows that the Democratic Party has a left wing. But no one goes around calling it the “Progressive Party.” Because that would be wrong: it isn’t the Progressive Party; it is the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Just the same, there is no Tea Party, there is just the Republican Party. (It isn’t the conservative wing; the Republican Party is the Tea Party.)

So until I get far more information on the IRS scandal, I’m assuming there is nothing there. As Norm Scheiber brilliantly noted, “The only real sin the IRS committed in its ostensible targeting of conservatives is the sin of political incorrectness—that is, of not pretending it needed to vet all the new groups that wanted tax-exempt status, even though it mostly just needed to vet right-wing groups.” It is certainly possible that these IRS agents were thinking, “Let’s get those conservatives!” But it seems unlikely.

Meanwhile, there is no surveillance scandal. That’s because the Democrats and Republicans are on the same side. There are no Republican operatives to funnel Jonathan Karl misinformation against the president. Since both parties want to ship the Constitution down the river, the Fourth Estate will just allow it. After all, pushing back would require real investigation. And all these bozos know about that is what they learned watching Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.

Afterword

There is a bit of a paradox. Supposedly, a group with “tea party” in its name isn’t necessarily just a conservative political group. If that’s the case—if Tea Party groups really do have Democrats and Republicans—then they aren’t conservative groups. Thus, the IRS wasn’t targeting “conservative” groups. On the other hand, if groups with “tea party” in their names are in general conservative political groups, then they shouldn’t be applying for 501(c)(4) status. I’m sure the IRS agents must have confronted this paradox.

Paul Krugman recently wrote an excellent article over at the New York Review of Books, How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled. It is ostensibly a review of three books: The Alchemists: Three Central Bankers and a World on Fire by Neil Irwin; Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Blyth; and The Great Deformation: The Corruption of Capitalism in America by David A. Stockman. Mostly, however, it is a discussion of how economic austerity has been embraced by leaders the world over because it fits into the human desire for a morality narrative.

I don’t completely accept this, however. And to be fair, neither does Krugman, although he does more than I do. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, there were lots of people we could point fingers at. But the initial governmental response to the crisis was to save exactly those people who were most guilty. Then, once the crisis was over but we were in a recession, the moral judgments came. But they came in a bizarre way. Now the crisis and recession were a morality play. The bad guys (bankers, for lack of a better term) crashed the economy and someone had to pay. And who was that? People on the edges of the economy who lost their jobs. That’s not any episode I ever saw of Family Ties.

Krugman is right: we see this narrative (lacking the details that make it laughable) all the time. As “liberal” Michael Kinsley recently wrote:

What I think is so vile about such pronouncements is how they are proffered with a sagacious air. They always claim that we must share the pain, but if you look closely, you will see that it is never them or their friends who will be feeling the pain.

But even if the right people were being punished, would that make it right? Keynes famously said that a depression was like a car with a bad starter. I think that’s a good analogy. Imagine if you had an old car and the fuel pump was screwed up, causing the carburetor to get too much fuel. As a result, the car ran like hell. You would fix the car, right? You wouldn’t tell your mechanic to set the fuel system to get too little fuel to the carburetor because it had to pay a price for its past sins of getting too much fuel. That’s because you want your car to run well; your car’s fuel system is not a morality play.

The same thing is true of the economy. It is a system. When it is in a recession, it works badly. People who could be working to make everyone richer, sit idle. Lives are destroyed while people are not allowed to work. This isn’t like a farmer who ate too much of last year’s crop and so this year is working extra land to make up for it. Applying a moralistic narrative to our economy is as bad as applying it to the fuel system of your car. And it is about as effective.

Afterword

This is not to say that bad actors in the economy shouldn’t be punished. However, most of the bad acts are not against the law because the people who make the laws and the people who take advantage of them are the same. It’s interesting that economists (especially conservative ones) are always talking about moral hazard: “A situation where a party will have a tendency to take risks because the costs that could incur will not be felt by the party taking the risk.” But this is always applied to the little guy. For example, the moral hazard of allowing someone to not get health insurance until they are sick. But there is an enormous moral hazard in not punishing people for crashing the economy. As is often noted, we socialize risk and privatize profits. There can be no greater moral hazard, but apparently, we don’t have to worry about it, because bankers are “good” people who we can “trust.”

Over at The Plum Line, Jamelle Bouie argued that we’ve already gotten a Grand Bargain. He noted that the combination of the 2011 Budget Control Act, the Fiscal Cliff deal, and the Sequester accomplished what the Grand Bargain was supposed to do. He went further and argued that since the Republicans are still planning to extract spending cuts for raising the Debt Ceiling, it means that they never cared about the budget deficit. Instead, they just want to to “gut” the safety net. (That’s his mixed metaphor; don’t blame me.)

Well, kind of. It’s true that Republicans don’t care about the deficit. And they haven’t since Reagan. And they do want to destroy the safety net. But that is just part of their overall revolutionary politics where they obstruct all progress unless they get everything they want. According to Lori Montgomery at the Washington Post, one House Republican wants to use the Debt Ceiling to make late term abortions illegal. If the Republican Party weren’t so dangerous, it would be laughable.

But let’s not lose sight of what’s been going on with the Grand Bargain the last several years. It is Obama’s obsession. He’s the one who wants to be applauded for making the “tough” decisions like cutting Social Security and Medicare. The Republicans are too smart for that. The oh so Serious Paul Ryan has never been willing to cut Medicare for current beneficiaries or Social Security ever. Republicans certainly want to screw the poor, but they know who is voting for them: old and rich people. Democrats like Obama and Bill Clinton seem to care more about some vague idea of history than they do their base of voters. Remember in 2001 that in the name of being the Adult in the Room, Obama gave Boehner 98% of what he wanted.

I’m not sure what the Republicans are thinking about the Debt Ceiling. I tend to think that the Republicans really will blink when it comes down to it. They understand politics and will not destroy themselves on purpose. What most concerns me about this is how Obama will react. If we get down to one day before breaching the Debt Ceiling, I can easily see Obama placing panicked calls to Boehner and McConnell. At that point, he would offer anything. Block grant Medicaid? Fine! Tax cuts for the rich? Great! Ban all abortions? Fantastic! Just don’t crash our whole economy!

I’ve long argued that the modern revolutionary Republican Party is the fault of the Democrats—especially the New Democrats. Instead of standing firm for liberal values, they’ve moved ever closer to the Republicans on economic issues. It’s as though they think that if they just get a bit more conservative then we can all just get along. Of course, for each step the Democrats take to the right, the Republicans take two steps to the right. And that leads to Democratic politicians like Obama who call out to the media, “See?! I’m being reasonable and they’re not!” And the media just shrug, “Yeah, but you still aren’t reaching a compromise.”

I’m sure that history will be nicer to Obama than to the Republican opposition. But he won’t be held up as an FDR or a transcendent figure. I suspect he will be seen as naive. No reasonable person could believe that the Republicans really care the debt or the size of government. Of course, very few of the elites in the media and politics are reasonable people.