Economic interests of majority may not be served by voting Democratic

That, at least, is the conclusion of economist Stephen Rose, whose latest paper, "Talking about Social Class: Are the Economic Interests of the Majority of Americans with the Democratic Party?", is linked to in the title and discussed in a post from Donkey Rising. I'm posting this having given the paper only a cursory look, but I've long suspected that the widespread belief, voiced most recently by Thomas Frank in What's the Matter with Kansas?, that most Republican voters are voting against their economic interests, is missing something. Rose attempts to quantify the number of voters who benefit economically from policies generally supported by Democrats--social safety net programs, curbs on corporate power, and other governmental programs. Adding up these groups does not result in a majority who would benefit from Democratic policies. I am uneasy about his methodology (and I need to read the paper more carefully), but I think Rose is on to something important here.

New category for 'Iraqi Insurgents'?

Linked in the title above is an interesting post from Bilmon noting a shift in the terms Bush used in his speech last night to refer to the opposition forces in Iraqi. Whereas formerly these forces were lumped together as simply 'dead-enders', or 'terrorists,' or (my personal favorite) 'anti-Iraqi forces,' in last night's speech there was a more subtle differentiation between 'terrorists,' former-Baathists, 'criminal elements,' and finally, 'Iraqi insurgents.' For which, Bilmon suggests, we might read 'negotiating partners.' Given the admission--from Donald Rumsfeld, of all people--that the US has held talks w/ leaders of some insurgent groups, the change in language may signal that the Bush administration really does have, or is working on, and exit strategy for Iraq. At best this could involve incorporating some insurgents in a broader political process. At worst this could involve a sell-out of the current government and the resinstallation of a Baathist/Sunni strongman. I doubt the news that US officials are talkng with insurgents makes anyone in the 'sovereign' Iraqi government feel very good.

Scary Supreme Court Decision

With all the talk about the future ideological balance of the U.S. Supreme Court these days, most people seem to focus on issues like public religious displays, abortion rights, gay rights, etc. But another recent decision that truly scares me is the recent Kelo vs. New London (Connecticut) judgment that states and municipalities can take people's homes through eminent domain and then give them to private developers. For once, I find myself in agreement with the ultra-conservatives on the Court, who dissented from the ruling. Behind all the cultural issues that occupy so much attention, the Supreme Court is really a bastion for elite interests behind the scenes. The supposed "liberals" on the Court really aren't that liberal, in my view, and it is a shame there are no truly progressive voices there...it is a shame that we have to depend on a few wacko right-wing, defend-private-property-at-all-costs justices like Scalia and Thomas to offer any resistance at all to wealthy, business interests at the Court (at least in this case...there's plenty of other issues where they are promoting corporate power).

But it is reassuring to know that there are some voices from the left out there condeming the Kelo decision, such as Ralph Nader, who also recently co-authored a Villanova Law Review article outlining an alternative proposal. "The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v City of New London mocks common sense, tarnishes constitutional law and is an affront to fundamental fairness," writes Nader in a press release. Mokhiber and Weismann, two of the leading journalists fighting corporate power, have also given a succinct analysis critical of the decision.

Some liberals do seem to support the decision, arguing that the Court made the right ruling on the legal merits and/or that it is important to preserve the legal right of governments to take or regulate private property for public ends. (For an example, see this rather lengthy post on the DailyKos blog...but also note the rather antagonistic reactions he's getting from lots of people commenting, who are themselves mostly self-described political liberals or progressives.) In my view, this is a gut-check progressive populist issue...do we stand with the ordinary small homeowners or the big powerful private companies? We do need to preserve some right for the state to regulate or even in rare cases take private property, with just compensation, for PUBLIC USE (as stated in the Constitution)...but we cannot let it be so open-ended that corrupt politicians can collaborate with powerful private interests to hurt the little people. I fear this could really come back to haunt us when we try to convince people that liberals/progressives are on the side of the ordinary man/woman, unless we make a STRONG STAND for common sense and justice. Well, that's my view. Any others?

Is the all-volunteer army a failure?

'Yes,' say many observers of the current recruiting crisis and the chaos in Iraq, such as Bob Herbert and Armando at Daily Kos (a site sporting a new, spectacularly ugly design). Sure, the all-volunteer force worked great for the short-term combat of Desert Shield/Storm, but for drawn-out conflicts like the one in Iraq, it's unworkable. The recommendation of Herbert and others is a draft, which would ensure the viability of our armed forces while--and this is a key side-benefit--making it much more difficult for politicians to order our troops into combat. I have a certain amount of sympathy for the idea of a draft that would more equitably spread the pain of conflict among the American people. But the situation in Iraq is hardly a good test of the concept of a volunteer army.

First, because the operations there have been so incompetently planned and executed by the Pentagon, and people inside and outside the military are beginning to see just how bad a cock-up Iraq has been. Who would want to risk their life in an operation run by idiots? Second, the moral case for the war and the sacrifices it requires was never made to the American people. Instead of asking for sacrifice in the service of vital national interests, the Bush administration told us how easy everything would be and asked us to continue shopping. What reasons war supporters gave for beginning the war and occupation have turned out to be at least misguided, some probably out-and-out lies. Given no opportunity to debate the war with a full realization of its potential costs, groping for information about the dangers of action or inaction in an environment intentionally clouded by thick clouds of half-truths and spin, it's hardly surprising that Americans are not more willing to risk their lives, and those of ones they love, in Iraq.

Whether or not an all-volunteer force can fight a long just war, run w/ reasonable competence, fought in defense of truly vital national interests, and entered into only as a last resort after a full and fair debate over the war's merits, remains to be seen. (The historical evidence is mixed, I would say: numbers of volunteers tailed off markedly after the first years of the Revolutionary War, and the Civil War; in World War II a draft was swiftly implemented, even as plenty of volunteers presented themselves as well.) Iraq tells us only that an all-volunteer force will find it difficult to sustain a long-term combat commitment entered into without a full debate, with constantly shifting goals, with poor planning and incompetent leadership, and with only a hazy notion of the vital national interests at stake.

Progressive Christian Lobbying Group

A web-only report from Rob Garver at the American Prospect on the Christian Alliance for Progress (CAP), a group dedicated to rescuing Christianity from the religious right. The group's website asks supporters to sign its "Jacksonville Declaration," addressed to the right:

“We must tell you now that you do not speak for us, or for our politics. We say ‘No’ to the ways you are using the name and language of Christianity to advance what we see as extremist political goals. We do not support your agenda to erode the separation of church and state, to blur the vital distinction between your interpretation of Christianity and our shared democratic institutions. Moreover, we do not accept what seems to be your understanding of Christian values. We reject a Christianity co-opted by any government and used as a tool to ostracize, to subjugate, or to condone bigotry, greed and injustice.”