UP@NIGHT

A Collision (NASA, THE  HUBBLE)

After a hiatus, UP@NIGHT returns with a BIG BANG.  Specifically, a post on The Big Bang Theory earlier today.

In the coming months, especially as the election draws near, posts will come fast and with fury.   (Ok, maybe not so fast and perhaps not too furious.  But at least pretty often and mildly agitated.)   And not just on politics.  There will be, for example,  popular culture, music, satire, cultural criticism, and even some philosophy (my day job).

If you are new to UP@NIGHT, know that some of the most reliable predictions on the 2008 election were made here.   Really.  (See the the site’s archive.)   Also, if you wondered where the Spock/Obama meme began, UP@NIGHT was the first to have a post dedicated to the topic, as far as this blogger can discover. “Obama, Spock, and the New Star Trek Generation.”

Enjoy (and comment soon)!

International Pillow Fight Day

Well, now we have it.  As the ad below highlights, Romney thinks that corporations are people.   They are not.   They cannot vote.  They cannot serve in the military.  They cannot feel pain.  And they are treated quite differently in terms of taxes, etc., etc.

What Romney seems to want to suggest is that people make up and benefit from corporations.   And this is precisely the problem.  The biggest benefit from corporations, money, has become so concentrated in the hands of a few that it is harder and harder to see these legal fictions as responsible players.   And people are angry about this.

I believe that we need a collective venting of the anger.  I propose a pillow fight.  But given the vast disparities in power and wealth, I suggest that the sides be picked in the following fashion:  the pay of workers vs. the pay of CEO’s at the largest U.S. companies.  In 1980 one survey showed it was 42 to 1.   Another in 2010, 343 to 1 (based on the median U.S. worker pay).

So I say we match 100 CEO’s from the largest companies against 34,300 of their workers.  Each will be supplied with identical pillows.

Further, I request that the Colbert Super-PAC (Making a better Tomorrow, Tomorrow) fund the event.  We will need a rather large stadium.  (Colbert this is a challenge.  I hope you are man enough to respond.)

As readers of UP@NIGHT may know from a previous blog, “The Unpatriotic Corporation,” we here at UP@NIGHT think little of B of A.  It’s a scandal that its name suggests that it is somehow affiliated with our country.   Yesterday we learned that AIG is suing Bank of America.  Here is the beginning of how this event was reported in the NY Times.

The American International Group sued Bank of America on Monday over hundreds of mortgage-backed securities, adding to the surge of investors seeking compensation for the troubled mortgages that led to the financial crisis.

The suit seeks to recover more than $10 billion in losses on $28 billion of investments, in possibly the largest mortgage-security-related action filed by a single investor.

It claims that Bank of America and its Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial units misrepresented the quality of the mortgages placed in securities and sold to investors, according to three people with knowledge of the complaint.

This helped make my day in the middle of Monday’s crash.  But to really top it off, as this report from Stewart and Co. reveals, B of A was foreclosed on by a couple of ordinary American citizens.  It doesn’t get much better in these difficult times.

With the debt deal done, here is a statement made yesterday by Jim Messina, a senior political adviser to the president, as reported in The New York Times, August 2nd.

But Jim Messina, the manager of the president’s re-election bid, said the discord among Democrats in Washington did not reflect what campaign officials were hearing from rank-and-file supporters of the president through nightly telephone calls and door-knocking.

And here are comments from Plouffe, Obama’s top campaign strategist, same piece.

“There’s a lot of enthusiasm, and I don’t see anything as contentious as this coming down the pike in terms of an intraparty situation,” said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the president. “There will be a unified, motivated and very aggressive Democratic Party supporting the president next year.”

Just tell me it ain’t so, Joe (Biden)…..Is this really the line that Obama’s team is going to take: Democrats aren’t that unhappy with the debt deal and there isn’t any deep frustration?  It’s only Washington Dems who are pulling their hair out?  Heaven forbid!!  This could be the beginning of the end if they really believe this.  And if it is just a cover, it’s lame.  There is a real problem “out there.”  They need to address it.

Much more to the point were comments by Tom Strickland, found in the same article.

“There are parts of the base that are discouraged,” Ted Strickland, a former Democratic governor of Ohio, said in an interview. “I don’t know that it’s the result of any personal animosity toward the president, but going forward it’s going to be important for him to inspire us, lead us, challenge us and be a real leader.”

From CBPP

Yes, as it turns out, the deal that Obama cut with the Republicans is not as bad as it could have been.  They could have gotten away with the kitchen sink, that is, cuts in medicaid and social security without any tax increases for the wealthy.  But instead the Republicans will be getting cuts that won’t really hit the economy until 2013, and medicaid and social security are safe from arbitrary cuts, for now.  Perhaps we should be thankful, especially given the state of the economy.

But I don’t feel thankful.  I feel like the American people got rolled.  The Tea Party activists set the agenda and then engaged in blackmail.  Cut now or else…and of course no increase in taxes on the wealthy.  Yet without a revenue increase there isn’t a way to bring down the debt that won’t also bring down (almost all of) the American people.  But most thoughtful Americans know that we can’t get out of this economic morass through some magic bullet on the reduction side.  Most Americans wanted a deal that included budget cuts and revenue increases.

So what happened?  Obama and Co. made a set of calculations:  Better to give in now and (perhaps) fight another day when there isn’t a sword of Damocles hanging over the country.  They assumed that the political costs could be contained.  Independents will blame Congress more than the president.  And upset Democrats will eventually fall in line.  After all, where can they go in 2012?  (As I write the House just voted to pass the “compromise” bill on the debt ceiling.   Most Republicans voted for it.  The Democrats split.)  Last but not least, The White House welcomed not having to deal with a new economic crisis.

It all sounds so reasonable and politically expedient.  But they may have miscalculated.  Take me for instance.  I have been a strong supporter of the president.  I have viewed his deep (philosophical) pragmatism as a virtue.  I never assumed that he was an old-fashioned liberal.  I thought he had mildly progressive leanings but was quite capable of centrist or even center right positions.  Given our time and place in American history, this was about as much as one could expect out of a Democratic Party nominee.  I also liked that fact that he sought to play long ball.  That he seemingly wasn’t looking for superficial or quick balms.  And that he had the intelligence to play long ball.

But you can’t play long ball (in politics) unless you can move the ball.  Or better still, unless you can convince your teammates and the fans that you can do so.  What we have seen in this latest round is Obama drawing a line in the sand and then hopping over it when it looked like he might actually have to fight a serious battle.  And it was a very important battle.  The extortion that took place was not solely about getting the government to spend less.  It was about setting an agenda.  It was about how Americans understand who and what are responsible for the rut we are in, and who is responsible for helping to dig us out.

Corporations are sitting on mountains of cash.  And as the chart above shows, the rich continue to do exceptionally well.  Income and wealth disparities are becoming chasms.  Yes, we have had fine words from the White House about this.  But words are no substitute for actions, unless the words themselves are actions.  Obama should have called the Republicans’ bluff.  He should have said, ‘you want a default, go ahead and don’t compromise.  Go ahead and insist on no new revenues from the wealthy.  You will answer to the American people.  You will even have to answer to Wall Street when the Market sinks or crashes.   And you know what, you will have to answer to me.’  (He could have let them believe early on that he just might invoke the 14th Amendment if he got angry enough.  Instead he gave this bargaining chip away.)

Obama should have come into office declaring a national state of emergency.  He should have not promised to lower the unemployment rate with “traditional” measures.  He should have emphasized that unemployment was actually much higher than the “official” figures, closer to 16%-20%.  He should have used the fierce urgency of now to enact emergency measures.  He should have done this when he was riding high.

Yes, I know.  This is all history now.  It’s water under the bridge.  It’s Monday morning quarterbacking.  Yet it is still relevant.  If Obama doesn’t draw a tighter connection between what he he says and what he does, he may win reelection but his presidency will never be known for great things.  He will be the president who helped us muddle through our declining place in the world, instead of the one who assisted us in confronting the economic and political realities of the 21st century.

After a taking a hiatus from blogging, I thought that I wanted to return with a some sort of scathing political commentary, filled with wit and an almost adolescent exuberance.   But then I spied this billboard along the West Side Highway.   I was horrified.  The Birthers had infiltrated the heart of New York City, my town, and were in the process of disenfranchising the place.   Never again would we vote in a national election.  Never again would someone from the five boroughs become president.  We aren’t in America.

But then I reconsidered.  More likely this was the work of an insidiously clever Republican operative.  He knows that Donald Trump is a danger to the Republican chances in 2012, if only because of the hair, which looks just like his half brother’s (this is not intended to be a factual statement), the very former governor of Illinois.  You know, what’s his name, Blagojevich.  If only natural born Americans can run for president, and if New Yorkers are not Americans, then as a native New Yorker Trump can’t run for president.   QED   And every Birther, including Trump, would have to agree.

A further clue to this dastardly mischief is supplied by one word from a sibling billboard.

   Although there is much evidence to support the operative hypothesis, I grant that it could be wrong.  It would require the operative to be too clever by half, and judging by the recent budget that the Republicans put forward, we can’t assume that anyone in the GOP has the extra half going for them.  So who did the deed?  It’s possible, just possible, it was a New Yorker with some extra attitude

Oh, I can understand why New Yorkers might have attitude.  After all, why would they have put Times Square, the Empire State Building, King Kong, Broadway, the UN, Wall Street, Steven Colbert, Lincoln Center, Batman, Superman, the Statue of Liberty, and the Yankees (of course), etc., here if this wasn’t actually the center of the planet?  Why else would “New Directions,”  the club from Glee, have to travel to New York to compete in the national finals?   And let’s face it, when the ball drops in Times Square on New Year’s Eve, everything else is just anti-climatic.

But just because NYC might be the center of the planet doesn’t mean it isn’t in the United States.  Where else would it be?  So let’s be clear.  The sign should have read, “If you leave New York, you will have to live somewhere else in America.”  Unless of course there is a Republican operative out there who is too clever by half.

We will remain vigilant at UP@NIGHT.

This is a, “I told you so” blog.   I have been arguing here and in other venues that Obama is a philosophical pragmatist and not just a political one.  At his press conference yesterday, in which he defended his compromise with the Republicans over taxes, he directly confronted a question about his core values.  He specifically placed his values in a wider framework, one that is clearly congenial to philosophical pragmatism.

Why is this important?  We need to understand the man if we are going to be able to work effectively for change.   Obama has a set of values that one might call “progressive” (and other values that might be termed “moderate” or even mildly conservative).   He is going to act on his (mostly) progressive views within a broader framework, which is his commitment to philosophical pragmatism.  This is not a sell out.  It is not a weakness in itself.  It is different from what we have seen in quite some time.   (This is NOT merely Bill Clinton’s political pragmatism, for example.)  Listen to how Obama defends his initiatives by citing the history of social security in the clip below. There is passion here.  And not the passion of someone defending a merely expedient outcome.  His commitment to pragmatism may often make him appear more conservative than he actually is.  For him, it’s about getting the best outcomes over the long term.  This is not to say that he hasn’t made tactical errors or errors in judgment and timing.  He certainly has.  It’s only to place his specific values in a broader context.

For those interested in learning more about the connection between Obama and pragmatism, there is James T. Kloppenberg’s new book, Reading Obama. The Afterword to my new book, Transcendence: On Self-Determination and Cosmopolitanism (Stanford) is on-line.  It discusses Obama’s pragmatism.   There is also the web site Barack Obama’s Pragmatism.

“The First Year,” photo credit: Whitehouse.gov

One of the recurring themes of pieces on Obama at UP@NIGHT is the nature of his pragmatism, which is as much philosophical as it is purely political.   We are once again, thanks to the election and Robert Gibbs’s comments about the so-called professional left, in the throes of debating not only Obama’s relationship to the left but his politics.   I thought I would collect here several links to discussions of Obama’s political thought and politics from the past couple of years at UP@NIGHT.

The entries most relevant to philosophical pragmatism are listed first.  There are a couple of critical pieces further down the list.  More to come.  But I think it important that we understand with whom we are dealing as we criticize Obama or his administration.  We should not fault him for seeking the possible when the more desirable was out of reach.

Obama’s Pragmatism (or Move over Culture Wars, Hello Political Philosophy)

Obama: Conservative, Liberal, or Ruthless Pragmatist?

Bronx on the Court, Empathy, and Obama’s Pragmatism

Obama’s Pragmatism and the Stimulus Package

Obama and Pragmatism

And for those who may still not have had enough, there is a discussion of Obama’s pragmatism and cosmopolitanism in an online (read, free) “Afterword” to my new book, Transcendence: On Self-Determination and Cosmopolitanism (Stanford University Press).

Photo Credit: AP, NY POST.……………………………….Photo Credit: Seheult/Eye Ubiquitous/Corbis)

….

Anger.  It’s in the air.  Everyone is mad as hell and won’t take it any more.

Well, there is much to be angry about.  And therein lies our problem.  To say the obvious, emoting without a proper target isn’t going to get us very far.  We will just get all the more angry.  And then we will do crazy stuff instead of fixing stuff.  Perhaps elect people who are just angry.  Case in point: Carl Paladino, the Republican candidate for governor of New York.  He’s angry alright.  He claims to be angry at government.  But if you watch this guy, he just seems to be angry.  Some dark anger that’s been there for years and is now finding a target, BIG BAD GOVERNMENT, as if this has been the major source of anger in his life.  If the government disappeared tomorrow, Carl would still be an angry man.

The temptation is very real in these difficult economic times to heed the siren call of the demagogues of anger.   Best here to pause and perhaps heed the words of an emperor of Rome, Marcus Aurelius, a guy who actually had to run something larger than Ellicott Development, a Carl company.

When you are immoderately angry or impatient, remember that the life of man lasts but a moment, and after a brief while we have all been laid out for burial.  (The Meditations, Book 11.18 Grube translation)

Cartoon, National Library of Medicine, Public Domain

For months now we have been left with the impression by the news media and the Republicans that Americans are in revolt against Obama’s health care legislation.  What’s the evidence?  Polls have shown more Americans currently disapprove than approve of the legislation.  Now we have a poll that finally asks several of the right questions, including whether the law should have done more!

“A new AP poll finds that Americans who think the law should have done more outnumber those who think the government should stay out of health care by 2-to-1.”

Read the article here:  AP Poll: Repeal? Many wish health law went further Many of us have thought that there was something seriously misleading about polls that simply asked whether you favor the President’s health care legislation.  We now have a good idea why.  The Democrats should not run away from health care.  They need to tell the American people that if the Republicans take over, they could lose any chance for getting the health care that the majority of Americans need and want.