Noticing Insurgency

I am not the only one who is noticing the rumblings of insurgency. Apparently Colbert King is seeing the same thing.

It’s a scary thought, but here it is: If some red states were to openly defy the authority of President Obama in the exercise of his constitutional duties, would today’s Republican Congress side with him? Or would they honor the insurrection?

I wish it could be said with confidence that the legislative branch would oppose a rebellion against the executive branch of government. But I’m not so sure...

American history teaches that we are on a dangerous path. And history has a way of repeating itself. A little more than 150 years ago, this country experienced another bombastic phase. Hatred of a president and his government’s policies produced a bloody schism that eventually led to an accord grounded in hope but which papered over a disharmony still lingering today.

Then, as now, there was a president, Abraham Lincoln, accused by those who detested him of misusing presidential power, subverting the Constitution and trampling over states’ rights. Then, as now, that president was characterized as a ruthless tyrant bent upon destroying a superior civilization.

Then, as now, that president was portrayed as a simpleton, a buffoon and a coward.

I'm fairly certain that we can find a less bloody way of ending the insurgency this time around. But it's worth noting the parallels.

Are Corporations Allies or Opponents?

There is one important lesson that liberals should learn from the confrontation we've recently witnessed about the Restoration of Religious Freedom proposals. The truth of the matter is - as the NYT Editorial Board noted yesterday - the reason the laws designed to allow discrimination against LGBT people failed is because corporate America stood up against them. All of the sudden liberals found themselves allied, not only with traditionally liberal businesses, but with corporations like WalMart and NASCAR.

Why did that happen? Here it is in a nutshell:

On the issue most representative of where Americans stand on the rights of gays and lesbians - marriage equality - opinions aren't just changing, they're doing so at an accelerated pace.

What is happening can be explained by something Everett Rogers called the "diffusion of innovations." It is "a theory that seeks to explain how, why, and at what rate new ideas and technology spread through cultures" and is often accompanied by a graph like this:

When it comes to acceptance of the rights of gays and lesbians, we are now well into the stage where the "late majority" signs on. People running corporations are not only affected by this kind of change themselves, they know their customers are as well. The bottom line is that very few of them could survive by catering simply to the laggards.

This is why I get uncomfortable when liberals simply cast corporations as our opponents (or worse yet, the enemy). It's true that specific businesses can be idiosyncratically a problem (ie, Hobby Lobby, Koch Brothers, etc) due to the ideology of their leaders. But in most cases, the bottom line of profit reigns supreme. There are times when that makes them an opponent - as in the case of Wall Street in passing and protecting Dodd/Frank. But it can also make them a powerful ally - as we have just witnessed.

On issues that don't directly affect their functioning, corporations will get on board with liberal causes once they get to the late majority phase with their customers. As the innovators and early adopters, liberals should recognize that by building the early and then late majorities, we can open up possibilities for alliances with corporations.

That's why, more than anyone else, I credit Harvey Milk (innovator) with the victories this week against RFRA. By encouraging gays and lesbians to come out of the closet, he ignited the diffusion of innovation amongst friends, family, co-workers that eventually led to acceptance by the late majority. Community organizers know that's how change happens.

What Are the Experts Saying About the Iran Deal?

Let's be honest, when the conversation turns to centrifuges and uranium enrichment levels, we can pretty much count on eyes glazing over for the majority of Americans. So the question becomes, how do we evaluate for ourselves whether or not the Obama administration and our P5+1 partners are in the process of working out a good deal on the Iranian nuclear program?

I'll tell you one thing we can't rely on - folks like presidential wanna be Gov. Scott Walker who promised to nix the whole deal on his first day in office before he even knew what was actually in it. That probably goes for the pearl-clutching antics of Peggy Noonan as well. Overall, I'd suggest that partisan pundits and political candidates are not the ones we need to hear from.

Some folks might be content to trust President Obama and Sec. John Kerry. Based on their records so far, that's not an entirely bad bet. But if you'd like more than that, there's one other group we can look to...the actual experts.

From what I've read so far, Max Fisher does the best job of explaining what has been agreed to so far in a way that those of us who are non-experts can understand. He calls on several experts to evaluate various measures of the deal and comes to the conclusion that the most significant part are the inspections that have been agreed to.

Even though the agreement is only a framework, the summary released on Thursday goes into striking detail on an issue that was always going to be among the most crucial: inspections.

Whatever number of centrifuges Iran has or doesn't have, whatever amount of uranium it's allowed to keep or forced to give up, none of it matters unless inspectors have enough authority to hold Tehran to its end of the deal — and to convince the Iranians that they could never get away with cheating. To say that the US got favorable terms here would be quite an understatement; the Iranians, when it comes to inspections, practically gave away the farm.

"I would give it an A," Stein said of the framework. When I asked why: "Because of the inspections and transparency."

Fisher also points out the one gaping hole that still has to be negotiated.

Still, this is just a framework deal on the basic terms; it covers a lot, but not everything. And there is one really important topic that is referenced only vaguely: how and when the world will lift its economic sanctions on Iran.

This has been a major sticking point throughout negotiations. Iran demands that all sanctions be lifted right away; their country needs a functioning economy, they say, and if they're complying with all of the restrictions as of day-one then they shouldn't have to endure crippling sanctions on day-two. But the US and others worry, with good reason, that if they lift all sanctions immediately then Iran will have far less incentive to follow through on its commitments, as it would be very difficult to re-impose those sanctions. And Iran has cheated on such agreements before.

This is a really difficult issue; each side has to trust, to some degree, that the other side will uphold its end of the deal. And someone has to go first. After decades of enmity, that's hard.

I encourage you to go read Fisher's whole article if you want to inform yourself about what he calls "an astonishingly good Iran deal."

Beyond that, last weekend I linked to an article from Jeffrey Goldberg about what to look for in a potential deal. Here's how he ended:

On this issue, as on others, I will be listening to experts I respect. There are several, but three of the people I will be listening to carefully on this issue in particular are Gary Samore, formerly President Obama’s point man on the Iran nuclear file; David Albright, of the Institute for Science and International Security, and Olli Heinonen, a former deputy director general of the IAEA.

Due to this great thing called "the internet," we can see if those three people have had anything to say yet. Apparently they have. Here's Samore and Heinonen:

Those conditions impressed two of the most skeptical experts on the negotiations: Gary Samore and Olli Heinonen of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard and members of a group called United Against Nuclear Iran.

Mr. Samore, who was Mr. Obama’s top adviser on weapons of mass destruction in his first term as president, said in an email that the deal was a “very satisfactory resolution of Fordo and Arak issues for the 15-year term” of the accord. He had more questions about operations at Natanz and said there was “much detail to be negotiated, but I think it’s enough to be called a political framework.”

Mr. Heinonen, the former chief inspector of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said, “It appears to be a fairly comprehensive deal with most important parameters.”

David Albright is one of several experts cited in this McClatchy article by Jonathan Landay titled: Proposed Accord Far Tougher on Iran Than Expected, Experts Say, which basically affirms Max Fisher's conclusions.

On its face, the framework announced Thursday for an agreement that limits Iran’s nuclear program goes further toward preventing Tehran from developing a nuclear weapon than many experts expected it would, including requiring an international inspection system of unprecedented intrusiveness.

Several contentious issues, however, remain to be clarified in the final accord, due to be negotiated by June 30. These include the exact process for lifting international sanctions that have devastated Iran’s economy, and the degree to which ending the sanctions will hinge on the Islamic Republic’s clarifying past research it’s suspected of conducting on a missile-borne nuclear warheads.

So...overall what the experts are saying is that Iran gave up more than they expected - especially on inspections - and that the negotiations between now and June 30th will hinge on the pace of sanctions relief.

Consider yourself informed.

History in the Making

Here is what the LA Times reported on November 24, 2013:

In mid-March, a small team of U.S. officials boarded a military plane and flew to the tiny Persian Gulf sultanate of Oman on a diplomatic mission so sensitive — and risky — that only President Obama and his closest advisors knew about it.

In a secret encounter arranged by the longtime monarch, Sultan Qaboos bin Said, the Americans sat down with a delegation of Iranian diplomats and nuclear experts in the capital city, Muscat, an ancient trading port on the Arabian Sea.

It was the first in a series of at least five clandestine meetings this year between U.S. and Iranian officials in Oman and elsewhere after more than three decades of bitter estrangement. They paved the way for the landmark agreement announced early Sunday in Geneva designed to freeze Iran's nuclear program for six months while negotiators seek a more comprehensive pact.

The hidden effort was a gamble by Obama...

In our fast-paced 24/7 news market, it can feel like the negotiations that were announced that week have been going on for a long time. But as that article points out, those initial clandestine meetings ended "more than three decades" of estrangement between the U.S. and Iran. That's how long we had gone without any "official" communication between the two countries.

That article describes those early encounters as "sensitive," "risky," and "clandestine," precisely because President Obama was taking such a gamble in even talking to the Iranians.

What's interesting to note is how often this President has been described as "cautious." There is probably some truth in that. But I love how Steve Waldman phrased it. He suggests that Obama has a "pitch-perfect sense of when to take the big risk." Up until now, the examples most often cited for that are his continued commitment to health care reform after Scott Brown was elected and his decision to attack the compound in Abbattobad, Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Now we can add to that list his decision to open up talks with Iran over their nuclear weapons program.

The result of taking that risk is that today President Obama was able to announce that history is in the making.

Presidential Approval Ratings: Polarization via Epistemic Closure

Recently Pew Research published a report on presidential approval ratings from Eisenhower to Obama. It didn't get much attention, but I think it contains some fascinating information. Here's the graph that really stands out.

What we see is that Obama's approval rating has varied less than any other president going back to the mid 1950's. But it's even more dramatic than that. Take a look at Pew's most recent graph of the President's approval rating since he was inaugurated in 2009.

If you eliminate the "honeymoon period" of his first year in office, you trim another 8 points from that spread and it varies even less. Keep that in mind the next time you hear a politician or pundit try to draw major conclusions about a tick up or down of a few points.

To further illustrate how this compares with previous presidents, Pew provides this graph showing the variation of approval ratings from Democrats and Republicans.

It is clear that - except for a blip during the presidency of George H.W. Bush - average approval from members of the opposing party has been dropping. In other words, we have become more polarized along party lines.

But it goes even deeper than that. Democratic approval of George W. Bush started off fairly high and initially went up. I'm sure that was in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. As his presidency proceeded, his approval not only dropped among Democrats, the decline was mirrored by a drop in approval amongst Republicans.

Similarly, we see a rise in Republican and Democratic support for Bill Clinton and a lot of variation from both groups in approval for Reagan over his 2 terms. As with Bush and 9/11, I'm sure those swings could be tied to specific events.

And yet, no matter what President Obama has accomplished at home or abroad (i.e., killing Osama bin Laden, improving economy, etc), his approval ratings with Republicans are not affected - and actually continue to decline (while his approval from Democrats remains fairly steady).

If it is true that in the past, shared events affected both Democratic and Republican views of our president, that no longer seems to be the case. Beyond a more polarized electorate, that is likely the result of a more polarized media and its contribution to epistemic closure.

One of the more striking features of the contemporary conservative movement is the extent to which it has been moving toward epistemic closure. Reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, Fox News. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted.

These days, shared events are immediately met with attempts by the right wing media to find a way to blame President Obama. Therefore, when it comes to a challenge like ISIS, rather than unite against a common opponent (as we did after 9/11), it becomes proof for conservatives of this President's incompetence (or, worse yet, culpability).

That is likely the kind of world we're going to be living in for a while. It's reflection in presidential approval ratings is just one sign of a bigger problem.

I Will Not Be Broken

It's sunny and 75 degrees up here in the tundra today. But the wind is really howling. I just love watching the big old trees in my neighborhood stand and take it. Reminds me of this song.

Democrats and Dog Whistles

Ever since the Republicans adopted a Southern Strategy to gain political momentum after the successes of the Civil Rights Movement, African Americans have become highly attuned to racist "dog whistles" in politics. And so for example, when Ronald Reagan announced his candidacy for president in Philadelphia, Mississippi (where 3 civil rights workers were murdered in 1964) and focused his speech on defending "states rights," he sent a message that was loud and clear to both Southern racists and African Americans without ever having to be explicit.

As we fast forward to 2008 and the election of this country's first African American president, the racism wasn't so hidden when a group of tea partiers rose up to challenge his place of birth. But in addition to the more blatant form, there were plenty of dog whistles too. Here's a reader at TPM explaining what s/he saw in 2011 when Speaker Boehner had some issues with scheduling a joint address to Congress by President Obama over the jobs crisis.

When Boehner does something like this (that no previous Speaker has done to any previous President), when he refuses to return the President's phone call during the debt ceiling crisis, when he skips state dinners, when he refuses to definitely say that he believes the President was born in the US or is a Christian, or when Boehner coddles a member of his caucus who shout "you lie" during a Presidential address, etc one certain thing happens - black Americans notice it.

African-Americans are especially sensitive to the unprecedented disrespect that white Republicans have afforded to the first black President. Every time it happens, it ripples across black radio, black newspapers, black websites, and in conversations in black communities. It helps cement the ties that Obama has with the black community, and helps overcome whatever doubts and disappoints some may have. It reminds people who have experienced covert racism in their own lives that the President is experiencing the same kind of dehumanizing disrespect.

But it hasn't just been the Republicans. During the 2008 Democratic primary, African Americans heard dog whistles from the Clinton campaign on a few occasions - like when Bill Clinton dismissed Obama's win in South Carolina and when Geraldine Ferraro suggested that Obama wouldn't be winning if he was a white man. David Love is right to suggest that Hillary Clinton can't necessarily count on the kind of enthusiasm President Obama garnered from black voters as a result.

Any Democratic candidate for president in 2016 who wants to maintain the Obama coalition will have to avoid sending out these kinds of dog whistles. Even African Americans who have occasionally disagreed with President Obama will be tuned in to any disrespect shown to our 44th president and the ripple effect the TPM reader described above will be triggered. That doesn't mean that no one is allowed to disagree with President Obama. But it does mean that its important to do so respectfully.

Obviously this is not something previous presidential candidates have had to pay attention to because we've never had an African American president before. But I'll remind you once again that David Simon nailed it.

America will soon belong to the men and women — white and black and Latino and Asian, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist, gay and straight — who can walk into a room and accept with real comfort the sensation that they are in a world of certain difference, that there are no real majorities, only pluralities and coalitions.

That kind of leadership starts with being able to recognize and avoid the dog whistles of racism.