December 2006

Two More

Zorn addresses the Obama detractors fairly well. While there are decent criticisms of him as a candidate, much of it appears to be bizarrely misplaced anger.

Rich makes a good point that I still haven’t internalized about the Rezko deal:

Apparently, nobody paid attention to the Blagojevich campaign. We had the most investigated governor in modern Illinois history (if not in all the state’s history) winning a race mainly by smearing a mostly honorable state treasurer as a George Ryan crony and a likely crook.

Besides, as I recall, that Whitewater thing went nowhere. It’s my opinion that she’ll have no qualms about using the Rezko deal against Obama, if she hasn’t already. Thoughts

Mea culpa, Rich is right. Blagojevich is really a Clinton wannabe anyway, just without the whole caring about policy and being a good speaker thing. He does have better hair though.

That said, it’s a good test for the team Obama will be putting together. When Clinton throws an elbow, how hard can he throw it back. I can say one thing for sure and that is I’m not going to be following anyone down the path of sitting around and insisting they people know better than to fall for dirty campaigning this cycle.

It also goes to the question Rich poses to Obama. I tend to think Obama’s story on the Rezko deal is credible and as such, the best way to kill it is to produce the previous owners and their real estate agent as well as the assessor for the property he bought directly from Rezko and get them on record supporting what he has said now. If he doesn’t the press will later and it’s always better to get it out now.

If there is any doubt about this rule, I have two words for the Obama campaign.

Blair Hull.

Things that are problems, but not by any means disqualifiers turn into disqualifiers if they aren’t fully exposed up front. As I mentioned in comments over at Rich’s the simple explanation is that if a former Harvard Law Review Editor wants to profit off his public position, there are a lot more sophisticated ways to do that than to enter into a real estate deal with a shady operator. People have disappointed me by doing such things in the past, I tend to think Obama isn’t one of those who is going to let me down on that account.

It’s Not Triangulation

It’s changing the debate. Atrios takes issue with Obama’s rhetorical triangulation here and I just don’t see it. He references Tomasky’s review of The Audacity of Hope in the New York Review of Books.

Tomasky’s review is okay, but there is one paragraph that descends into utter psychobabble crap:

One can’t dismiss the possibility that such lobbying may have affected Obama’s vote. But I think—from the evidence of his books and other writings—that a more likely explanation is this: he wanted, even if only to prove to himself that he could do it, to show at least one Democratic interest group that he could say no, and he chose the trial lawyers. They are less threatening than the advocates of organized labor and abortion rights. I feel certain that he just wanted to see how it felt.

I’m not sure getting into Obama’s head is all that necessary if one knows anything about Illinois politics and especially controversy over Madison County as a venue for class action suits. While this vote has become some litmus test for how liberal one is, it’s not some out there bill. The two key provisions mean that class actions with less than 1/3 of the plaintiffs from the state the suit is introduced in can be certified in federal court. On top of that was a coupon provision where disclosure is required when consumers get coupons and lawyers get millions.

The advocates against the law would have you believe the federal courts will kill off all of the lawsuits, but the problem with that is that Madison County has the opposite problem. It is viewed by many as a place you are likely to lose so many simply settle–this is a counter balance to that impulse and makes it easier for plaintiffs to litigate the case. Madison County does kill off consumer lawsuits some of which may be frivolous and most which are not by offering every incentive to settle at first chance leaving the underlying problem unaddressed often.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disagree with the provisions and Obama, but it’s hardly a litmus test of a progressive as to which side one is on. This isn’t Tort reform of the type to limit pain and suffering or even punitive damages. It is a change of venue with disclosure rules.

But more to the point, knowing Obama’s record as I do, I don’t see the triangulation. It’s a redefinition of the debate. Look at his speech from the Take Back America Conference:

Thank you. Thank you Roger Hickey and Bob Borosage for bringing us all together today and thank you for your leadership in the cause of a more progressive America.

My friends, we meet here today at a time where we find ourselves at a crossroads in America’s history.

It’s a time where you can go to any town hall or street corner or coffee shop and hear people express the same anxiety about the future; hear them convey the same uncertainty about the direction we’re headed as a country. Whether it’s the war or Katrina or their health care or their jobs, you hear people say that we’ve finally arrived at a moment where something must change.

These are Americans who still believe in an America where anything’s possible – they just don’t think their leaders do. These are Americans who still dream big dreams -they just sense their leaders have forgotten how.

I remember when I first ran for the state Senate – my very first race. A seat had opened up, and some friends asked me if I’d be interested in running. Well, I thought about it, and then I did what every wise man does when faced with a difficult decision: I prayed, and I asked my wife.

And after consulting with these higher powers, I threw my hat in the ring and I did what every person on a campaign does – I talked to anyone who’d listen.

I went to bake sales and barber shops and if there were two guys standing on the corner I’d pull up and hand them literature. And everywhere I went I’d get two questions:

First, they’d ask, “Where’d you get that funny name, Barack Obama?” Because people just couldn’t pronounce it. They’d call me “Alabama,” or they’d call me “Yo Mama.” And I’d have to explain that I got the name from my father, who was from Kenya.

And the second thing people would ask me was, “You seem like a nice young man.

You teach law school, you’re a civil rights attorney, you organize voter registration, you’re a family man – why would you wanna go into something dirty and nasty like politics?”

And I understood the question because it revealed the cynicism people feel about public life today. That even though we may get involved out of civic obligation every few years, we don’t always have confidence that government can make a difference in our lives.

So I understand the cynicism. But whenever I get in that mood, I think about something that happened to me on the eve of my election to the United States Senate.

We had held a large rally the night before in the Southside of Chicago, which is where I live. And in the midst of this rally, someone comes up to me and says that there’s a woman who’d like to come meet you, and she’s traveled a long way and she wants to take a picture and shake your hand.

And so I said fine, and I met her, and we talked.

And all of this would have been unremarkable except for the fact that this woman, Marguerite Lewis, was born in 1899 and was 105 years old.

And ever since I met this frail, one-hundred-and-five-year-old African-American woman who had found the strength to leave her house and come to a rally because she believed that her voice mattered, I’ve thought about all she’s seen in her life.

I’ve thought about the fact that when she was born, there weren’t cars on the road, and no airplanes in the sky. That she was born under the cloud of Jim Crow, free in theory but still enslaved in so many ways. That she was born at a time for black folks when lynchings were not uncommon, but voting was.

I’ve thought about how she lived to see a world war and a Great Depression and a second world war, and how she saw her brothers and uncles and nephews and cousins coming home from those wars and still have to sit at the back of a bus.

And I thought about how she saw women finally win the right to vote. And how she watched FDR lift this nation out of fear and send millions to college on the GI Bill and lift millions out of poverty with Social Security. How she saw unions rise up and a middle-class prosper, and watched immigrants leave distant shores in search of an idea known as America.

She believed in this idea with all her heart and she saw this progress around her and she had faith that someday it would be her turn. And when she finally she saw hope breaking through the horizon in the Civil Rights Movement, she thought, “Maybe it’s my turn.”

And in that movement, she saw women who were willing to walk instead of ride the bus after a day of doing somebody else’s laundry and looking after somebody else’s children because they walked for freedom. And she saw young people of every race and every creed take a bus down to Mississippi and Alabama to register voters because they believed. She saw four little girls die in a Sunday school and catalyze a nation.

And at last – at last – she saw the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.

And she saw people lining up to vote for the first time – and she got in that line – and she never forgot it. She kept on voting in each and every election because she believed. She believed that over a span of three centuries, she had seen enough to know that there is no challenge too great, no injustice too crippling, no destiny too far out of reach for America.

She believed that we don’t have to settle for equality for some or opportunity for the lucky or freedom for the few.

And she knew that during those moments in history where it looked like we might give up hope or settle for less, there have always been Americans who refused. Who said we’re going to keep on dreaming, and we’re going to keep on building, and we’re going to keep on marching, and we’re going to keep on working because that’s who we are. Because we’ve always fought to bring all of our people under the blanket of the American Dream.

And I think that we face one of those moments today.

In a century just six years old, our faith has been shaken by war and terror, disaster and despair, threats to the middle-class dream, and scandal and corruption in our government.

The sweeping changes brought by revolutions in technology have torn down walls between business and government and people and places all over the globe. And with this new world comes new risks and new dangers.

No longer can we assume that a high-school education is enough to compete for a job that could easily go to a college-educated student in Bangalore or Beijing. No more can we count on employers to provide health care and pensions and job training when their bottom-lines know no borders. Never again can we expect the oceans that surround America to keep us safe from attacks on our own soil.

The world has changed. And as a result, we’ve seen families work harder for less and our jobs go overseas. We’ve seen the cost of health care and child care and gasoline skyrocket. We’ve seen our children leave for Iraq and terrorists threaten to finish the job they started on 9/11.

But while the world has changed around us, too often our government has stood still. Our faith has been shaken, but the people running Washington aren’t willing to make us believe again.

It’s the timidity – the smallness – of our politics that’s holding us back right now. The idea that some problems are just too big to handle, and if you just ignore them, sooner or later, they’ll go away.

That if you give a speech where you rattle off statistics about the stock market being up and orders for durable goods being on the rise, no one will notice the single mom whose two jobs won’t pay the bills or the student who can’t afford his college dreams.

That if you say the words “plan for victory” and point to the number of schools painted and roads paved and cell phones used in Iraq, no one will notice the nearly 2,500 flag-draped coffins that have arrived at Dover Air Force base.

Well it’s time we finally said we notice, and we care, and we’re not gonna settle anymore.

You know, you probably never thought you’d hear this at a Take Back America conference, but Newt Gingrich made a great point a few weeks ago. He was talking about what an awful job his own party has done governing this country, and he said that with all the mistakes and misjudgments the Republicans have made over the last six years, the slogan for the Democrats should come down to just two words:

Had enough?

I don’t know about you, but I think old Newt is onto something here. Because I think we’ve all had enough. Enough of the broken promises. Enough of the failed leadership. Enough of the can’t-do, won’t-do, won’t-even-try style of governance.

Four years after 9/11, I’ve had enough of being told that we can find the money to give Paris Hilton more tax cuts, but we can’t find enough to protect our ports or our railroads or our chemical plants or our borders.

I’ve had enough of the closed-door deals that give billions to the HMOs when we’re told that we can’t do a thing for the 45 million uninsured or the millions more who can’t pay their medical bills.

I’ve had enough of being told that we can’t afford body armor for our troops and health care for our veterans and benefits for the wounded heroes who’ve risked their lives for this country. I’ve had enough of that.

I’ve had enough of giving billions away to the oil companies when we’re told that we can’t invest in the renewable energy that will create jobs and lower gas prices and finally free us from our dependence on the oil wells of Saudi Arabia.

I’ve had enough of our kids going to schools where the rats outnumber the computers. I’ve had enough of Katrina survivors living out of their cars and begging FEMA for trailers. And I’ve had enough of being told that all we can do about this is sit and wait and hope that the good fortune of a few trickles on down to everyone else in this country.

You know, we all remember that George Bush said in 2000 campaign that he was against nation-building. We just didn’t know he was talking about this one.

Now, let me say this – I don’t think that George Bush is a bad man. I think he loves his country. I don’t think this administration is full of stupid people – I think there are a lot of smart folks in there. The problem isn’t that their philosophy isn’t working the way it’s supposed to – it’s that it is. It’s that it’s doing exactly what it’s supposed to do.

The reason they don’t believe government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem. That we’re better off if we dismantle it – if we divvy it up into individual tax breaks, hand ’em out, and encourage everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement security, your own child care, their own schools, your own private security force, your own roads, their own levees…

It’s called the Ownership Society in Washington. But in our past there has been another term for it – Social Darwinism – every man or women for him or herself.

It allows us to say to those whose health care or tuition may rise faster than they can afford – life isn’t fair. It allows us to say to the child who didn’t have the foresight to choose the right parents or be born in the right suburb – pick yourself up by your bootstraps. It lets us say to the guy who worked twenty or thirty years in the factory and then watched his plant move out to Mexico or China – we’re sorry, but you’re on your own.

It’s a bracing idea. It’s a tempting idea. And it’s the easiest thing in the world.

But there’s just one problem. It doesn’t work. It ignores our history. Yes, our greatness as a nation has depended on individual initiative, on a belief in the free market. But it has also depended on our sense of mutual regard for each other, of mutual responsibility. The idea that everybody has a stake in the country, that we’re all in it together and everybody’s got a shot at opportunity.

Americans know this. We know that government can’t solve all our problems – and we don’t want it to.

But we also know that there are some things we can’t do on our own. We know that there are some things we do better together.

We know that we’ve been called in churches and mosques, synagogues and Sunday schools to love our neighbors as ourselves; to be our brother’s keeper; to be our sister’s keeper. That we have individual responsibility, but we also have collective responsibility to each other.

That’s what America is.

And so I am eager to have this argument not just with the President, but the entire Republican Party over what this country is about.

Because I think that this is our moment to lead.

The time for our party’s identity crisis is over. Don’t let anyone tell you we don’t know what we stand for and don’t doubt it yourselves. We know who we are. And in the end, we know that it isn’t enough to just say that you’ve had enough.

So let it be said that we are the party of opportunity. That in a global economy that’s more connected and more competitive – we are the party that will guarantee every American an affordable, world-class, top-notch, life-long education – from early childhood to high school, from college to on-the-job training.

Let it be said that we are the party of affordable, accessible health care for all Americans. The party that won’t make Americans choose between a health care plan that bankrupts the government and one that bankrupts families. The party that won’t just throw a few tax breaks at families who can’t afford their insurance, but modernizes our health care system and gives every family a chance to buy insurance at a price they can afford.

Let it be said that we are the party of an energy independent America. The party that’s not bought and paid for by the oil companies. The party that will harness homegrown, alternative fuels and spur the production of fuel-efficient, hybrid cars to break our dependence on the world’s most dangerous regimes.

Let it be said that we will conduct a smart foreign policy that battles the forces of terrorism and fundamentalism wherever they may exist by matching the might of our military with the power of our diplomacy and the strength of our alliances. And when we do go to war, let us always be honest with the American people about why we are there and how we will win.

And let it be said that we are the party of open, honest government that doesn’t peddle the agenda of whichever lobbyist or special interest can write the biggest check. The party who believes that in this democracy, influence and access should begin and end with the power of the ballot.

If we do all this, if we can be trusted to lead, this will not be a Democratic Agenda, it will be an American agenda. Because in the end, we may be proud Democrats, but we are prouder Americans. We’re tired of being divided, tired of running into ideological walls and partisan roadblocks, tired of appeals to our worst instincts and greatest fears.

Americans everywhere are desperate for leadership. They are longing for direction. And they want to believe again.

A while ago, I was reading through Jonathan Kozol’s new book, Shame of a Nation, which tells of his travels to underprivileged schools across America.

At one point, Kozol tells about his trip to Fremont High School in Los Angeles, where he met a girl who tells him that she’d taken hairdressing twice, because there were actually two different levels offered by the high school. The first was in hairstyling; the other in braiding.

Another girl, Mireya, listened as her friend told this story. And she began to cry. When asked what was wrong, she said, “I don’t want to take hairdressing. I did not need sewing either. I knew how to sew. My mother is a seamstress in a factory. I’m trying to go to college. I don’t need to sew to go to college. My mother sews. I hoped for something else.”

I hoped for something else.

I’ve often thought about Mireya and her simple dream and all those before her who’ve shared that dream too.

And I’ve wondered – if she is lucky enough to live as long as 105-year-old Marguerite Lewis, if she someday has the chance to look back across the twenty-first century, what will she see? Will she see a country that is freer and kinder, more tolerant and more just than the one she grew up in? Will she see greater opportunities for every citizen of this country? Will all her childhood hopes be fulfilled?

We are here tonight because we believe that in this country, we have it within our power to say “yes” to those questions – to forge our own destiny – to begin the world anew.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is our time.

Our time to make a mark on history.

Our time to write a new chapter in the American story.

Our time to leave our children a country that is freer and kinder, more prosperous and more just than the place we grew up.

And then someday, someday, if our kids get the chance to stand where we are and look back at the beginning of the 21st century, they can say that this was the time when America renewed its purpose.

They can say that this was the time when America found its way.

They can say that this was the time when America learned to dream again.

Thank you.

I suppose the argument could be that he doesn’t say this in every speech, but it’s hard to see how this isn’t a call to change how the debate is fought putting it on the ground Democrats do best and adhering to core Democratic values.

How Low Can You Go?

One of the suggestions from many Republicans is that this year’s election is just a freak or that things will get back to normal by 2008 when the environment will look very different. The notion that you can predict what will be the top issue in two years is often true and no majority is permanent.

However, just as in 2005 I was able to suggest we were looking at a wave election, we can see where the country is headed for the next two years and it will be a tough two years for Republicans.

Looking around at the domestic scene, the Republican ethical scandals aren’t going anywhere. Abramoff is still cooperating and while there might be some Democrats in that investigation, there will be more of the party that was in power.

But more than that, all of the oversight hearings that Republicans didn’t hold for the last six years will now be held and there is a whole bunch of stuff going on at different agencies that haven’t made the major news outlets especially at EPA and Interior. My personal favorite is the closing of the EPA libraries, but even Novakula pointed out there is a bit of an exodus at the agency as they’ve figured out what’s coming.

Or just invite the loon appointed to be the head of family planning who is against contraception. Being against contraception is fine, being appointed to head the agency charged with providing low income women with contraception is like a Bush pinning a kick me sign on his back.

Only a completely incompetent Democratic majority could not be producing a press event every day to embarrass the administration.

That’s just the beginning of the problem for Republicans though. They are caught between a general public that has soured on the war and a base that is strongly supportive of it. From the CBS News poll released on the 11th, 57 percent of voters want a timetable to get out with 58 percent of independent voters agreeing and 71 percent of Democrats. In contrast, 61 percent of Republicans do not want to set a timetable.

The question for any potential Republican nominee then is how does one run with the base and then run to the center? There is a strong element of the Republican base that has tied everything to George Bush and defecting from that united front is considered being disloyal, yet there is very low confidence in George Bush and in particular his strategy for Iraq amongst non-Republicans.

The way out of that conundrum is to have a new policy that is effective or the start of a pullout.

As I said back in early 2005, Iraq isn’t getting any better while we are there. There is no sign of the President understanding how large of a disaster he has created and no suggestion that he wants to change course. His listening tour was only a photo op and the idea of adding more troops temporarily will fail, just as the strategy already failed in Baghdad. It is a case of doing the same thing over and over again despite it not working.

The Republican Party’s 2008 campaign seems to require a fidelity to staying in Iraq while appeasing social conservatives. Bush was able to do the second through the use of his personal story and his familiarity with evangelical language. Romney and McCain have no such ability and Brownback is like my dream GOP candidate to face.

GOP candidates are going to be facing an electorate that will continue to sour on the war and a domestic policy situation where firing up the evangelical base will be difficult to motivate. If this year looked bad, 2008 looks even worse.

The Right Conclusion, but the Wrong Inference

Carol Marin writes a pretty good column today on gender’s effect upon getting elected–the key paragraph to me is:

And just Tuesday, Thomas B. Edsall’s New York Times column pointed to what he called “disturbing” Democratic numbers. “In the 42 top-tier ‘Red to Blue’ races selected by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for intensive financing and support, 25 of the candidates were male and 17 were female,” wrote Edsall. “In those contests, male candidates batted .800: 20 victories to five defeats. The women faced higher barriers: three won and 14 lost, batting .176.”

My question is more related to what races these women got into–I’m guessing that they were able to get in the primary when fewer men were wanting to get in the race–IOW, less favorable districts. There is a fair degree of evidence that women do best in State Legislatures when the pay is lower because men, because of wage disparity, have to give up more. In cases where the District is harder win in or perceived that way, fewer men maybe willing to run the risk if there is a connection between the two.

Ha Ha

Greenfield is arguing the blogs don’t get his humor. He thinks it was just poor delivery and that the bloggers didn’t get his joke.

I made a joke of the joke as Brooks Brothers being behind the move, but there is a real problem here–what other politician other than Barack Obama would he have compared to Ahmadinejad?

Now why did he do that?

That’s why it’s not funny. It’s associational humor that’s wasn’t that funny and then kind of stunk up the place because it wouldn’t have worked with anyone else.

It’s in the book

Which apparently, despite an almost obsessive compulsive effort to hawk his own book, David Sirota seems to think Barack Obama hasn’t really made clear his position on structural globalization issues even though, it’s in the Audacity of Hope as two quotes I picked out below address.

Sirota said this yesterday:

“But it is downright destructive to peddle the idea that paying teachers
more or better funding the No Child Left Behind Act will be th
majore key to solving the problems inherent in a globalization
policy that incentivizes slave labor, sweatshops, union busting
and environmental degradation.”

====================

As I wrote in my profile of Obama in The Nation, when it comes to these structural issues, he is a man who seems caught between his background as a community organizer in touch with real people, and his current existence surrounded by Washington insiders and consultants who, by profession, push politicians to avoid challenging power. Peddling the Great Education Myth is the ultimate way to avoid challenging power. If this is just a fleeting tactic and Obama goes on to get serious about the real heart of our economic challenges, then he may be the great presidential candidate Democrats need. But if this aversion to confronting power previews the rest of his campaign, there will indeed be a major opening for a real populist candidate to win the nomination and the presidency.

Here are the quotes from Obama in The Audacity of Hope:

On page 174:

“And while upgrading the education levels of American workers will
improve their ability to adapt to the global economy, a better education
alone won’t necessarily protect them from growing competition…In other
words, free trade may well grow the world-wide economic pie — but
there’s no law that says workers in the United States will continue to
get a bigger and bigger slice.”

Obama continues on Page 176

“This doesn’t mean however that we should just throw up our hands and
tell workers to fend for themselves…I am optimistic about the
long-term prospects for the U.S. economy, and the ability of U.S.
workers to compete in a free trade environment — but only if we
distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across
the population.”

Immediately after that passage Obama talks about how workers need a need social safety net, and spends about 10 pages talking how workers need better unemployment and trade adjustment assistance, and introduces the concept of wage insurance, expanding EITC, better bargaining power for unions, portable pensions, health care, bankruptcy reform to fix the garbage that was passed, etc.

I get the skepticism of the media frenzy. It’s kind of funny to watch and all, but one thing the blogosphere is around to do is to put a check on the press’ coverage, not simply take it at face value. Because Obama didn’t give a long policy based speech in the one that was aired, does not mean that Obama hasn’t taken positions or doesn’t have them. Having watched him in 2004, he was the policy wonk out of a very talented Democratic field. In this field the policy wonkishness goes up to a different plane, but he’s still well documented.

Well documented if you take what Obama says in things like books that he writes and not just one speech on C-SPAN.

Who Said the Following?

“And while upgrading the education levels of American workers will
improve their ability to adapt to the global economy, a better education
alone won’t necessarily protect them from growing competition…In other
words, free trade may well grow the world-wide economic pie — but
there’s no law that says workers in the United States will continue to
get a bigger and bigger slice.”

====

“This doesn’t mean however that we should just throw up our hands and
tell workers to fend for themselves…I am optimistic about the
long-term prospects for the U.S. economy, and the ability of U.S.
workers to compete in a free trade environment — but only if we
distribute the costs and benefits of globalization more fairly across
the population.”

Why Would You Hire The Law Firm of Peter Francis Geraci When They Don’t Understand Even Basic Law

Apparently because the Illinois Review used the name of the law firm in a post, the Law Firm of Peter Francis Geraci warned them to stop using the name as it is trademarked.

Never hire the Law Firm of Peter Francis Geraci because that’s a really stupid interpretation of the law. Greg lays it out pretty well.

You can also use your trademarked name for comparing two products or as a parody. For example, to say that you are a poor firm compared to Dowe, Cheatem & How is legal. To say that you are better than they is also legal. It’s appropriate to report on the law firm of Peter Francis Geraci in conjunction with employees or partners making campaign contributions or for that matter not making campaign contributions. We can also say, for example, that last year’s bankrupcty reforms were a good thing for firms such as Peter Francis Geraci, or we can say it was a bad thing for firms such as Perter Francis Geraci. We can also say, Nike, Proctor & Gamble, Exxon and any other number trade names all damn day and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

Mr. Stoolmaker, with the number hits on blogs and their power to shape news, break stories you do your brand identity no good by threatening political activists engaged in political speech. It’s the kind of thing that can make you infamous in a hurry.

Actually, he has pulled off something–getting me to defend the Illinois Review. We’d call that cats and dogs living together in Ghostbusters’ terminology.

The ultimate outcome of this ridiculous claim is that anyone seeking to hire the Law Firm of Peter Francis Geraci now knows that they are incompetent lawyers. Congratulations.

Necessary and Sufficient Conditions

Because Sirota’s diatribes are always so much fun, take a look at todays. Shockingly, he’s attacking Obama again, but in a rather bizarre way.

Sounds good so far – sounds like we’re going to get some honest straight talk about how the rules of trade are rigged to protect patents, copyrights and intellectual property, but not to protect human rights, union rights, wage levels or the environment, and that such a tilted playing field unfairly forces Americans to compete with slave labor. But that’s not what we get from Obama. He immediately goes on to say the following, and then moves on to another subject:

“At that point parents start saying why aren’t we doing everything we can to prepare our young people making them adept at math and science so that they can get the jobs of the future and be the innovators of the future? Why wouldn’t we invest in early childhood education to bring every child up to par? Why wouldn’t we start paying our teachers more and help develop training for them to recruit the best and the brightest for the classroom? Why on earth would we start increasing the cost of student loans at the precise time we know that our young people are going to be needing a college education more than ever?”

Yes, it is the Great Education Myth – the idea that if we only just made everyone in America smarter, we would solve outsourcing, wage depression and health care/pension benefit cuts that are the result of forcing Americans to compete in an international race to the bottom. As I wrote recently in the San Francisco Chronicle, this is one of the most dishonest myths out there, as the government’s own data shows that, in fact, all of the major economic indicators are plummeting for college grads. You can make everyone in America a PhD, and all you would have is more unemployed PhD’s – it would do almost nothing to address the fact that the very structure of our economy – our tax system, our trade system and our corporate welfare system – is designed to help Big Money interests ship jobs offshore and lower wages/benefits here at home.

I’ll accept Sirota’s take on most free trade agreements–they don’t turn around and provide support to workers who will lose jobs and mostly the standards are pretty useless. I’m not as skeptical as he is of being able to get them to work since the only real reason they don’t is a lack of will on our part. In a world dominated by the US if we insist on certain condidtions for easy access to our markets, we can set reasonable rules.

But what he confuses with the education myth babble is that education is a necessary though not sufficient condition of economic growth. One can point towards stagnating wages for most levels of educational achievement, but not point out that an individual with more education almost always does better than an individual with less education. So even with stagnating wages one does far better by obtaining a higher level of education.

There is a deeper problem with his claim as well. The assumption is one of the economy being a zero sum game where there is only so much money to go around. Especially with a highly educated workforce this isn’t true. A more highly educated workforce innovates and creates opportunities.

For all the strawmen David complains about, the notion that anyone wants to get everyone a PhD is silly and shows a stunning lack of awareness about the current educational system. Beyond that, while I think some of his criticisms of Friedman are decent, Friedman is the first guy to say that government should provide a safety net including universal health care and social supports.

When I think about a highly trained workforce I think about high school graduation rate around 90 percent in our cities with 60 percent of those students going on to college or tech school. Right now? In many cities you see a 50 percent graduation rate.

That’s wasted human potential and even if you fix all those things wrong with the American economy that David argues to fix, economic growth and future opportunity is tied to having a highly educated workforce. It isn’t just oversees competition that requires that, it’s also technological advancement. Workers seeking high wage jobs whether factory work or other require a far higher degree of education to do the job well.

But here is my frustration with the point even more. He poo-poos Obama’s statement about early childhood education as not being about a structural problem in the economy. That is silly bullshit. Really silly bullshit. Not only do we have a moral responsibility to provide children with opportunity, we have a moral responsibility to give them the tools to successfully take part in democracy which education helps. Who votes the least? Those without a high school degree. Who are those without a high school degree? Kids who start out behind in kindergarten.

Now all of this is also a good investment because children who are better prepared upon entering elementary school also tend to do better economically and tend to get into less trouble as they are growing up costing society less.

Circling back to Barack Obama, this is really what annoys the hell out of me when it comes to Sirota. Sirota says he want a progressive leader, but then acts like leading on early childhood education and care is just buying into a myth. It’s not a myth that regardless of whether you fix US economic policy that improving a child’s chances is largely dependent upon improving her educational opportunities. If they aren’t losing out to someone in Asia, they are losing out to someone in another neighborhood, another city or another state.

Working in a modern factory isn’t the same as working in factories at a time when a high school diploma or less would be fine. That will never be the case again either and globalization will pit American workers against other workers in the world–yes, it would be nice to make that a more even competition, but even if it is, education will be critical to Americans doing well.

Kids in inner city neighborhoods aren’t going to find decent jobs when they grow up if you correct the inequities in US trade and tax policy, but they still don’t have technical degree or even a high school education.

Perhaps David isn’t familiar with these problems, but suggesting they aren’t important or brushing them off with this:

But it is downright destructive to peddle the idea that paying teachers more or better funding the No Child Left Behind Act will be th majore key to solving the problems inherent in a globalization policy that incentivizes slave labor, sweatshops, union busting and environmental degradation.

Of course, what Obama said of education is true. It’s just that education isn’t sufficient, but it is every bit as necessary as the policies Sirota is advocating. Those policies to varying degrees may be necessary for workers to improve their lives, but they are not sufficient either.