Politicana

… and the revolt of the bureaucrats. I’m starting to like this David Brin guy.

Specifically, in the case of Virginia, you can see America’s First Colony start to fracture in two — much as it did in 1861, when Appalachian settlers angrily refused to betray their country at the behest of aristocratic tidewater slave owners, choosing to secede instead and form West Virginia. Similarly today, you hear tales of local politicians declaring that Northern Virginia is something totally apart from the “real” parts of the state. One angry neocon called it “Communist country.”

I suspect there are interesting factors involved in the rebellion of Northern Virginia, that go beyond simply the economy, or a demographic shift toward more education, or even a lot of northern migrants. I surely doubt socialism of any inkling has a thing to do with the surge of Obama support in the counties surrounding the District of Columbia. Rather, I think this local phenomenon is due to something largely overlooked.

The swing against the GOP in Northern Virginia is all about the U.S. Civil Service. It is a mini-referendum by members of the professional class who we hired to run the business of America’s government — by far the top employer of that region. These people are turning to the Democrats, in droves.

Note that it did not start out this way. Polls showed repeatedly that (contrary to some expectations) federal employees are not notable more liberal or democratic-registered than Americans, at large. Indeed, many are deeply conservative by temperament. And remember, Northern Virginia includes a lot of military folk, as well, including the Pentagon and several huge Naval installations. Then why this dramatic swing of political passion, in a region that showed strong GOP streaks in the past?

I’ve tried to make this point repeatedly. The civil servants and members of the U.S. Officer Corps have endured eight years as the very worst victims of this administration. They’ve been stewing under the grip of thousands of political appointees, partisan hacks charged by President George W. Bush with a single, paramount mission — to bully, harass, divert and demoralize the men and women who actually keep the nation running. From the Justice Department to the intelligence services, to science agencies, to the military, those hatchet men seem to have had no other purpose than to prevent our public servants from doing the lawful jobs that we pay them to do.

Note the cleverness of this neocon stratagem. In most of American life, if workers suffer abuse, the right to complain and seek redress is pretty strong. Civil servants, too, are supposedly protected from direct political interference. But so long as the hacks refrained from anything too overt — (with the exception of stupidly firing those assistant U.S. Attorneys) — they could erect barricades of distraction and mal-assignment that would thwart agency workers from accomplishing anything, or solving any problems, causing many to resign in frustration. Moreover, civil servants and military officers are constrained — by both law and tradition — against speaking out against their political superiors.

Is there a comeuppance? Apparently, the military did stand up, courageously, a couple of years ago, in what is now quietly known as the Generals and Admirals Revolt – resulting in the ousting of Donald Rumsfeld as Defense Secretary and the arrival of the Gates-Mullen team, effectively peeling the hands of Bush and Cheney away from the tiller at Defense. An episode when our officer corps bravely kept their oaths once again, to protect us from enemies, both foreign and domestic. And they did it so discretely that most Americans haven’t a clue how much we owe them.

Alas, I’ve been disappointed that few other groups of civil servants have done likewise. Apparently, the FBI and CIA agents and others, who might have blown the whistle on Bush era crimes, proved too timid to stand up and help their country in its hour of desperate need. Instead, they appear to be leaving it up to the People. The ignorant, febrile, much-maligned People will have to fix this mess. Much as they did on 9/11, common citizen voters will work a miracle that the professionals could not. Or would not.

Still, here’s the point: I believe that it is the simmering resentment of the civil service caste that we are seeing erupt in Northern Virginia… and in patches around the country. When our first state joins in the blue rebellion, nobody in the GOP or in Red America should yelp in wounded surprise. They brought it on themselves.

And then there’s this coda:

Which brings us to the news that: “In 2001, the last year the Internal Revenue Service estimated the tax gap – the difference between what taxpayers owe and what they actually pay – the figure stood at $345 billion, or $290 billion after subtracting enforcement efforts and late payments.”

Yes, this is half of the recent bailout passage. But what I find stunning is that very little has been said about the fact that 2001 was the last year of figures on missing taxes owed! Think about it in light of my earlier contention that the greatest crime of the Bush Gang has been to divert, quell, bully and repress the ability of the entire US Civil Service to perform any function that might help the republic to operate in a healthy way.

Now you have the smoking gun.

When Libertarians meet the Bush regime … step back!!!

… or anywhere else you want to put it. But I found this map on Andrew Sullivan (linked from Poulos) that highlights John McCain’s current “best case scenario.”

Basically, he needs to win Pennsylvania. And Ohio and Florida and Nevada. But here’s the thing: he’s not going to win Pennsylvania.

Steady … steady.

Dan again, with another article I found linked from Andrew Sullivan this time. It’s by Ezra Klein, and it argues that we know very little about undecided voters –estimating their numbers is an imprecise exercise at best. But undecided voters, by definition, fall into the broader category of swing voters (those with weak leanings, at least initially), and Klein describes a study that asserts that in the last 50 years, only in 1976 did swing voters prove critical to the outcome of a presidential election.

What does this mean?

The outcomes [of elections] are structural — they are decided by events and party identification and satisfaction with the incumbent and other predictable indicators.

Steady … steady.

I am Dan, and I am linking this blog post by Steven M. Teles, on the Reality-Based Community, because I like it, I agree with it, and I think you should read it.

Short: now is the time for the government to spend like crazy on all kinds of worthwhile infrastructural projects, because no one else is going to invest in this economic climate. So why is Obama talking like a budget hawk?

Now that we’re entering the final phases of what looks likely to be a not-particularly close election, David Brin has a suggestion. It involves the winning candidate making a pledge to offer the losing candidate something symbolic, but still meaningful. What could that be, you ask? Read his short post.

… says Dean Baker, at TPM’s Coffee House.

“The Banks Have a Gun Pointed at Their Head and Are Threatening to Pull the Trigger.”

There is no plausible scenario under which the no bailout scenario gives us a Great Depression. There is a more plausible scenario (but highly unlikely) that the bailout will give us a Great Depression. There is no way that the failure to do a bailout will lead to more than a very brief failure of the financial system. We will not lose our modern system of payments.

I’m no economist, but really, this whole thing is starting to stink, stink, stink. One of the comments on the post, linked above, reads:

A $700 billion commitment will tie the hands of the next administration significantly. We’re a little over a month away from the election. Would things truly deteriorate so badly that we can’t address insolvent banks without this bailout over the next two months?

You want my theory? This is, in effect, an October surprise, but it’s geared to the reality of the coming Democratic Party takeover of government. Every dime that goes to the financial system today is a dime that Obama won’t be able to use to improve our lives in the coming year (at least).

Meanwhile, over at the Reality-Based Community, Jonathan Zasloff is arguing that today’s failure to pass a bill means Democrats should push harder for the provisions they want, including bankruptcy reform. If Republicans balk, the Dems can say of their November challengers, “My opponent thinks it’s a great idea for the stock market to drop 800 points!”

On the other hand, there’s Hilzoy, arguing for cautious support. And if I respect anyone in the world of blogging, I respect her. This is all very frustrating. Where do y’all stand on this mess?

Peter wanted me to let everyone read an e-mail I sent around a few days ago:

Even the Libertarians are freaking out … and urging everyone to vote for Obama …

David Brin is a science-fiction author and essayist, and (I believe) a longtime champion of libertarian causes. He’s also known for his book called the “Transparent Society,” in which he basically argues that privacy is a mirage and the best we can do is to give everyone access to all the information that’s collected about all of us, instead of leaving it in the hands of corporations and government agencies.

I disagree, btw …

Anyway, here’s his two latest blog posts:

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/09/who-is-credible-to-fix-mess-its-time.html

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2008/09/scary-stuff-political-lamp-is-lit.html

Here’s an important reminder of the difference this election will make, and also a useful piece of data to forward to any undecided friends:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/09/20-million-give.html

The article notes that McCain’s health care plan, by design, will leave 20 million workers who currently have employer-provided health care without any.

You read that right. Check out the details and then spam the heck out of anyone who still can’t make up their minds.

Sarah Palin has energized the Republican base –who are now, for all intents and purposes voting for a Vice-President rather than a President.

But it’s what she’s done to Democrats that I’m most concerned about. To wit: she has caused us to revert to our old “What’s wrong with Kansas?” meme, in which we continually dredge up fact after fact, proving that Palin is crazy, unreliable, corrupt –you name it– and her popularity continues to rise. I know you all read 538, so I won’t belabor the point, but Sean makes a critical argument in this post: Democrats must allow voters to like Sarah Palin, but give them permission to vote for Obama anyway.

I argued, in front of Troy, that Democrats sense the similarities between the Palin phenomenon and their own embrace of Barack Obama, and this resentment, if you will –that once again, the right-wing has proven able to beat us at our own game– drives much of the zany obsession that we see reflected in constant overheard conversations about Grandpa John’s plucky little Veep. Troy didn’t buy it, but I insisted that Obama’s political rise was caused by essentially the same phenomenon now playing out in Republican circles.

“A charismatic speaker, who embodies, in his/her person and his/her biography, aspects of ourselves that we admire –a politician who, if elected, would symbolize for us the kind of America we wish to be …”

Who am I talking about? So don’t be surprised when millions of Americans, who feel beaten down by the horrible failures of a President they found eminently likable, return to that well yet again, and rub it in the noses of Democrats. The fact that Barack Obama also happens to be perhaps one of the most qualified and capable people to run for President in my lifetime is essentially a coincidence. You either like him or you don’t.

All conversations should now begin, as Sean suggests, with some version of “Sarah Palin is a wonderful person. But life is not a sitcom. Now is not the time to have someone who’s totally untested at the national level a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. She’s got a great future ahead of her, and she’ll be a strong candidate down the road. But she won’t even have a press-conference. Obama is what we need in 2008.”

Who knows, that kind of talk might even turn her likability into a liability.

As the guy who dreamed, in living color, that Joe Biden had been picked as Obama’s VP nominee the morning before the (late night) announcement, I have to give a shout out to Dr. Blume. He sent an e-mail around a few weeks ago, with the prediction that Sarah Palin would be Grandpa John’s veep choice. We all dismissed it.

I suspect our reaction was a fair bit milder than that of the GOP bigwigs right now.