Now that the beat sweetener has entered our lexicon, let's look at a piece typical of its form. Stu Rothenberg ran a shockingly sycophantic editorial in last week's Roll Call brown-nosing Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and Rahm Emanuel:

Democrats simply have smarter, tougher, more cold-blooded voices in government at the moment. That hasn’t always been the case, and it’s certainly not inevitable. But right now, it’s true.

...I’m referring to a trio of Democrats in Washington, D.C., who epitomize the party’s current advantage — Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.) and White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, who until recently served in the House as the third-ranking party leader.

Read the entire thing if you can stomach it. First, you'll notice that Rothenberg doesn't cite any evidence beyond that he saw Barney Frank on TV once. Why is Frank so much more impressive than his Democratic colleagues? How do we know that Schumer and Emanuel were the "architects" of 2006 Democratic Congressional victories, and that those victories didn't happen because of other factors? Is there an objective measure that we can use to determine what makes a particular political player "savvy"? If there are answers to these questions, they aren't contained in Rothenberg's piece.

Broadly, his underlying logic is flawed: Rothenberg sees Democrats prevailing in our discourse, and attributes that success to "savvy" political actors like Frank/Schumer/Emanuel. This doesn't hold up because Frank, Schumer, and Emanuel have been prominent public figures for years, and Rothenberg doesn't explain why their supposed political skill is only now leading to success. It's far more likely that current Democratic success is due to 1) power change that comes with an election, particularly the bully pulpit of the Presidency, and 2) actual change in public opinion that comes from an increased understanding of the consequences of discredited public policy. Rothenberg's piece is from the perspective of day-to-day games and strategy rather than policy choices that have consequences in elections.

It's also probably not a coincidence that the actors he chooses to glorify are some of the biggest corporate sellouts of the Democratic party. Schumer lobbied heavily for deregulation of the financial industry. Barney Frank was one of the primary authors of the weak bailout bill, which we're now feeling the consequences of (incidentally, not very "savvy"). And Rahm Emanuel... where do we even start? By fawning over these actors, Rothenberg continues a tradition where "pragmatists" are considered "smarter" or more "serious" than their "ideological" counterparts. These stories in insider publications give them credibility, and amplify their voices at the expense of progressive alternatives (ex. where are the fawning profiles of Chris Van Hollen or Howard Dean, and why aren't electoral victories attributed to them?)

Ultimately, the beat sweetener is a collective action problem among journalists. Journalism loses credibility when reporters write beat sweeteners, because it violates public trust in work that's supposed to be written in good faith. On the other hand, individual journalists have an incentive to write beat sweeteners if they feel it gets them better long-term access to information, and better stories. When political commentators like Rothenberg write illogical, unsubstantiated pieces glorifying public figures for personal gain, they need to be publicly shamed so they're less likely to do it again.

Claire McCaskill, part of the bipartisan group of Senators gutting the stimulus, sent out the following update on Twitter: "Proud we cut over 100 billion out of recov bill.Many Ds don't like it, but needed to be done.The silly stuff Rs keep talking about is OUT." Elsewhere, she told reporters that the cuts eliminated the "junk" in the bill. Her communications director Adrianne Marsh said "So glad that Claire was part of this moderate team Nelson is calling "the jobs squad". Very cool. Hopefully the others will see this is best". Here McCaskill is taking pride in her role in the cuts and dismissing the shortchanged programs.

The "silly stuff" cut included $40 billion for state government, $98 million for school nutrition, $1 billion for Head Start, and $2 billion for increased broadband access. As D-Day points out, since states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, state budget cuts undermine the effects of the federal stimulus. Many of the other affected programs both put people to work and are important long-term investments. Take Head Start: funding the program means hiring more teachers and other staff, and the parents of participating children have increased opportunity to find work themselves (not to mention the benefit of providing education to low-income kids). Instead, the centrists have ensured that we will employ 600,000 to 900,000 fewer Americans than had their changes not been implemented.

Responding to critics from the left, McCaskill backpedaled, arguing that "Compromise had to happen or we would NOT have 60 votes. Period." To Krugman, she responded "Just saw Krugman's comments on reduction in recov act. Question for him. Would no stimulus act be better than one thats 800 B instead of 900." This is a different argument. First, she defended the cuts on their merits. Later, she justified the cuts as a necessary step to getting the bill passed. Interestingly, she shifted from first-person in the first tweet to passive voice in the later ones, with the effect of obscuring her involvement in the "compromise."

I'm glad McCaskill is addressing criticism from the left, and I'm even sympathetic to her political argument: Deficit spending requires 60 votes to pass in the Senate, and the bill has to pass. The problem is her shifting rationalizations for the cuts -- her argument that all of the programs she cut weren't worthwhile and wouldn't help to get us out of this mess is troubling. Politicians embracing Twitter is great, but in this case it just means we get to see the backpedaling in real-time.

It's worth noting that the RNC had no choice but to appoint Michael Steele as chair of their party -- Katon Dawson, the number two vote getter, had to quit his all-white country club before getting in the race. That wouldn't have been a good look for the Republican party, especially in the current environment. Still, make no mistake: the selection of Steele as the figurehead of the GOP continues a tradition of appropriating the symbols of civil rights to pursue regressive policies. He's another tool to perpetuate the white conservative establishment.

This clip illustrates how meaningless this symbolism is:

We round up some of the most important news and commentary released over the weekend (Jan. 24 and 25).

AMERICAblog: There will not be a recession, flashback to 2006/2007 - Chris from AMERICAblog digs up a compilation of clips from Fox News and CNBC that illustrates how economic commentators who predicted the recession were ridiculed. This is yet another example of how media figures change the costs and benefits of supporting a particular position by creating an artificial consensus. The cable news networks have created an environment where commentators who were wrong about the recession and shouted down the pessimists face no accountability.

Slashdot: Monster.com Data Stolen, Won't Email Users - Hackers once again breached Monster.com's user database, stealing personal information such as names, e-mail addresses, and passwords. Even worse, Monster isn't notifying their users about the breach. As a society we habitually give up our privacy without an understanding of the consequences. Cable companies don't need our social security numbers, but we give it to them without thinking. There is no system of accountability for companies that lose or abuse this data.

NYT: Republicans Are Resistant to Obama’s Stimulus Plan - Congressional Republicans have no intention of supporting Obama's stimulus plan as it currently exists. Of course, if the stimulus passes and fails to work, they benefit politically, so they have an incentive to pass a less effective bill. Todd Beeton thinks that the political pressure will be too much for some Congressional Republicans to resist, and Atrios argues that the focus should be on creating the best bill possible regardless of Republican support.

Russ Feingold: Constitutional Amendment Ending Gubernatorial Appointments to Senate Vacancies - The process that governors have employed to fill Senate vacancies has been unquestionably disastrous. Russ Feingold wants to push a constitutional amendment to end this undemocratic practice. A constitutional amendment honestly seems unlikely to pass given the work involved and votes needed, but at least Feingold's move keeps the flaws of gubernatorial appointments in the spotlight. Will have more commentary on this later in the week.

Larissa MacFarquhar: Ms. Kennedy Regrets - Relatedly, the New Yorker published a sympathetic profile of Caroline Kennedy told largely from the perspective of her friends. It argues that she's a smart and well-meaning person, but just not cut out for politics. My response would be that although she may have had problems as a candidate, the broader issue is the fundamentally undemocratic process of Governors appointing Senate vacancies. What if she hadn't realized that she wasn't prepared to be a Senator and accepted an offer from Patterson? One conclusion from the piece is that elections weed out people who don't realize they aren't suited for high-profile politics, not just in terms of talent but also lifestyle change.

Firedoglake: Sunlight is to Lobbyists as Garlic is to Vampires - Banks that benefited from the bailout are using taxpayer money to work against our collective interest. I don't think all lobbying is bad, but a lot of the collective action problems we face seem to be exacerbated by the lack of transparency in lobbying.

Think Progress: Obama’s Right-Wing Dinner Friends Rip His Stimulus Package: Worst Bill In ‘Galactic History’ - The conservative pundits that Obama embraced and legitimized are already trashing his stimulus plan. Big surprise.

Zack Exley at Revolution in Jesusland explains why "evangelical" Christians are worth taking the effort to understand. The Gaiman quote from “A Game of You” he references encapsulates why the story one of my favorite Sandman arcs. Gaiman took what most readers earlier dismissed as a throwaway character, developed her, and showed us this fascinating and complex fantasy world inside her mind. The story makes a compelling case that everyone is worth understanding regardless of the initial impression they convey, and the principle of equal worth of all people as Exley points out.

Amanda Marcotte at pandagon dissects the most recent episode of Battlestar Galactica, particularly its attempted parallels to U.S. politics, if you're into that sort of thing.

I'm sure I missed a lot of good stuff -- what've you been reading?

Saul Anuzis, one of the candidates for RNC chair, made the following comment on Twitter a couple weeks ago:

First woman in the U.S.Senate...Republican. First woman in the U.S. House...Republican. Same for African-Americans...GOP's history strong.

He implies that because the first black and women representatives in both houses of Congress were Republicans, the GOP is somehow inoculated from criticism of their record on civil rights issues. This doesn't come out of nowhere: Republicans make these kinds of statements because they feel the need to defend themselves.

First, if the facts Saul cites are the standard for a strong civil rights record, his argument doesn't hold up today the way it may have historically. Let's take a look at the balance in the 110th Congress: There are 42 black Democratic Representatives in the House vs. no black Republicans. 53 Democratic women Representatives in the House vs. 20 Republican women. While meaningful, the GOP having the "first" black or women representatives is no longer relevant to our modern political discourse.

Of course, the notion that the GOP, which absorbed the Dixiecrats, has a strong history on civil rights because of these "firsts" is absurd. The broader problem with Saul's statement is that it reflects the GOP's tendency co-opt progressive civil rights symbols for the purpose of justifying regressive policies.

Take Sarah Palin: by self-identifying as a feminist, invoking Hillary Clinton in her first campaign speeches, and as potentially the first woman Vice President of the United States, she adopted many of the symbols of women's empowerment. Although she claimed the symbols of feminism, her actual purpose on the campaign trail was to reinforce existing gender roles. Culturally, she reinforced these existing gender norms by masking her ambition and "putting a skirt on," as conservative commentators put it. In terms of public policy, she's virulently anti-choice, opposes birth control and emergency contraception even in extreme cases, believes in abstinence-only education, and wouldn't take a position on equal pay. She portrayed herself as a figure of women's empowerment while undermining feminism as a movement.

Much like their attempt at subverting feminism in the 2008 campaign, conservatives use black politicians to advance regressive policies on civil rights issues. Ken Blackwell pushed to disenfranchise minorities as Secretary of State of the most critical swing state in 2004. Ward Connerly is the most prominent figurehead of the anti-affirmative action movement. As someone who supports policies that will lead to discrimination in the guise of advancing equality, he's one of the best examples of appropriating the symbolism of civil rights for the purpose of undermining them. But as long as the GOP continues to blame black families for the financial crisis, engage in race baiting, oppose legislation to promote equality like affirmative action, actively antagonize the black community with discriminatory voter ID laws, and blame the victims of Katrina, these tactics shouldn't be taken seriously.

Saul Anuzis' comment neatly fits into this pattern -- a superficial acknowledgment of progress that hides, and is even meant to legitimize, a much more disturbing value system. The next time you see the GOP using the symbols or language of civil rights, remember that they're selling something very different than what they claim.

UPDATE: Jim Moss adds:

I call major B.S. on Anuzis. The first African-American Congressmen served during Reconstruction in the 1870’s. You simply cannot compare the Republicans and Democrats today to the parties back then. They have changed completely. Also, the blacks in Congress then were only able to serve because of the strict restrictions of Reconstruction. Missippippi, then or now, would never come close to actually electing a black Senator.

Also, the first female Senator was a gimmick, an 87-year old woman named Rebecca Latimer Felton from Georgia who was appointed and served for just 24 hours. The first elected Senator was a Democrat - Hattie Caraway of Arkansas, who served from 1931-1945.

The only one of those four the Republicans should brag about should be the first female Representaive, Jeanette Rankin, elected in Montana in 1916.

I guess Anuzis, as Republicans often do, is counting on people to be ignorant.

I admittedly don't know enough about Afghanistan to blog about it as an issue, but here's something I've noticed about the "Get Afghanistan Right" effort from an organizing perspective: outside of groups that are centered around a specific conflict, such as Iraq or Israel/Palestine, we don't have a progressive foreign policy infrastructure. As Alex often points out, arguing that we need to pull out of Iraq to escalate in Afghanistan might be a strong argument for withdrawal from Iraq, but it doesn't fit as well as a component of a comprehensive progressive foreign policy strategy.

We need progressive foreign policy institutions that formulate policy, lobby, blog, take electoral action, and work the media. Labor and environmental groups, despite all their faults, are good at this. They create arguments, give them credibility among a wider audience, and ultimately see them turned into real public policy. We might not know what environmental or workers rights fights are going to look like in 10 years, but we know that we're going to have them. Progressive institutions that comprehensively address these groups of issues are almost always key players in individual issue fights, even without knowing what these fights will be in advance.

How "credibility" is determined in the foreign policy world is deeply flawed -- there's a tendency in our discourse, even on the progressive side, to fetishize "manly" individuals and positions. That's fine for individual issue fights or elections, but bowing to these narratives doesn't work as a long-term strategy. Although "chickenhawks" is a useful term that has helped us identify hypocrisy and win elections, the underlying attitude behind the concept can easily be turned against progressives (i.e. weak whiny liberals who aren't serious). This isn't to say that "tough" positions don't have merit, but if we consistently turn to them for validation it skews our thinking and ultimately affects our policy views. We need institutions that understand how to shift the consensus and give progressive foreign policy positions credibility without needing to seek legitimacy from "tough" individuals.

The lack of such an institution is part of what makes organizing opposition to escalation in Afghanistan difficult. I'm in no position to argue whether escalation in Afghanistan is the right thing to do, but I do know that there's a large portion of the base that opposes escalation and isn't represented institutionally. Although existing progressive foreign policy orgs are excellent at what they do, they either have too narrow of a focus, come from a mindset that is incompatible with the progressive base, or are too afraid to come out strongly against the incoming administration.

Although Obama's proposed stimulus plan is better than what Bush would have devised, his own economic team admits it doesn't do enough to reduce unemployment:

“Full employment” clearly means an unemployment rate near 5 — the CBO says 5.2 for the NAIRU, which seems high to me. Unemployment is currently about 7 percent, and heading much higher; Obama himself says that absent stimulus it could go into double digits. Suppose that we’re looking at an economy that, absent stimulus, would have an average unemployment rate of 9 percent over the next two years; this plan would cut that to 7.3 percent, which would be a help but could easily be spun by critics as a failure.

Why? Rather than focusing on creating jobs, Obama added massive tax cuts to the plan in order to achieve broad bipartisan support for the bill. House Republicans responded by demanding an all tax-cut, no spending version of the stimulus plan. Predictably, bipartisan support for the bill appears to have crumbled:

Obama's stimulus package is on track to pass before the Presidents Day recess in mid-February. But it is increasingly doubtful that he will pick up the 80 Senate votes he had hoped to win in the first major legislative test of his presidency. Instead, the bill is likely to pass on the strength of the Democrats' majority.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said Wednesday that prospects for bipartisanship in the stimulus debate rapidly were eroding.

Obama started by compromising, to make his offer palatable to Congressional Republicans. Given his experience in Congress, one would hope he'd realize that this is not good negotiation strategy. There are two ways this can go: 1) A watered down bill that won't be effective, but will burden us with greater debt as we plunge deeper into recession. This bill will have the support of Congressional Republicans, but when it doesn't work Obama will take the blame. Or 2) A bill without "bipartisan" cover that actually has a chance at working.

Aside from the long-term strategy, a strong stimulus bill is politically useful now. An NBC/WSJ poll released today (q. 28) shows that the public prefers "government spending that creates jobs" over "tax cuts" by 63 percent to 33 percent. Do people really want bipartisanship on this issue, or is that desire driven by elite consensus?

UPDATE: Stimulus bill is now online.

Here's why it's important to understand how "The Village" operates: When journalists define the consensus on a particular issue, that changes the costs and benefits for elites to support their preferred position. This in turn compels them to move toward that consensus position rather than acting on their principles.

In an ideal world, people who are correct about the implications of a public policy would be rewarded, and people who are wrong get penalized. Elites who correctly predicted the effects of the Iraq war, for example, would be booked as commentators on TV more often. The President-elect would value the advice of economists who had successfully predicted the financial crisis over the "serious" ones who got us into this mess. And the list goes on.

"The Village" describes what happens in reality -- an environment where being misinformed, but adhering to the consensus of the group, is less costly than breaking from the herd. Consider an elite deciding whether to publicly oppose going to war with Iraq in 2002: Opposing the war meant being cast into what Daniel Hallin described as the "sphere of deviance," which is what journalists perceive as the fringe of a public policy debate. On the other hand, staying silent or supporting the war meant avoiding being ostracized from the in-group. If the war turned out to be a bad idea, at least everyone was wrong together. In other words, even considering all of the possible outcomes of the Iraq war, "The Village" creates an atmosphere for elites where being wrong is less costly than being right, even when the person suspects their position is wrong. On Wall Street, similar group pressure discouraged people from acknowledging the housing bubble. Again, being wrong was less costly than breaking with the consensus opinion. This dynamic changes the tone of our public policy debates.

Initiatives like "Get Afghanistan Right" are effective because they challenge conventional wisdom by pointing out that dissenting views exist. Moving viewpoints from the "sphere of deviance" to the "sphere of legitimate debate", or shifting the Overton window, can have a tremendous impact on public policy by lowering the cost for elites to change their publicly stated opinion. When elites move toward a consensus position it strengthens that consensus, causing a self-reinforcing loop. On issues where we don't agree with journalist-created consensus, we need to break it.

Some reddit commenters argue that 1) All deficits are bad, and 2) I'm similarly hypocritical for not supporting deficit spending during the war, but supporting them now that Democrats are in power.

Generally I think deficits should be avoided, but I wouldn’t agree that they are always "bad." Plenty of evidence shows that when governments invest in infrastructure, they can offset some of the effects of depression.

Look at state governments, which are required to have balanced budgets. The times when states most desperately need to be spending is also when revenue is down — their hands are tied when they need to spend the most.

I mentioned this in the weekend link roundup, but the hypocrisy of conservative bloggers is worth calling out. Right on cue, top conservative bloggers are coming out against the stimulus, arguing that we can't afford it because of the federal deficit.

Red State:

But bipartisan bonhomie notwithstanding, there’s no more reason to embrace Barack Obama’s stimulus plan today than there was a week ago. It is still a tremendous waste of taxpayer dollars, will do nothing to help the economy, and will blow an even bigger hole in a deficit that has risen from $162 billion to $1.2 trillion annually since Democrats took control of Congress.

Power Line:

The Congressional Budget Office projected today that the federal budget deficit for FY 2009 will be $1.2 trillion, over 8 percent of anticipated GDP. And this is before Congress enacts Barack Obama's "stimulus" package, which would add hundreds of billions of dollars more to the deficit.

Instapundit:

A DEFICIT SPENDING “BLOWOUT:” The looming red ink is unlike anything in U.S. peacetime history. Stimulus, or looting the treasury?

These people supported the Iraq war and consistently opposed withdrawal, which is going to cost us three trillion dollars. That they're suddenly concerned about deficit spending after six years of neglect is disappointing, but predictable.

This is a pretty standard tactic from the conservative playbook. When they're in power, they rack up debt by cutting revenue and giving handouts to their cronies. When political power shifts hands, this allows them to argue that we can't afford to spend on social programs.

...speaking of conservative bloggers, I can't wait to join the Red State STRIKE FORCE!!!!!111111

We read stuff so you don't have to.

John Cole: At What Point Will She Shoulder Some Blame? - Sarah Palin refuses to accept responsibility for her unpopularity, and comes off looking even worse than she did before. It's getting to the point where she's complaining about how her complaining is portrayed in the media. Very meta.

ABC's This Week - Following up on our discussion about holding Bush accountable, Obama indicated to George Stephanopoulos that he was hesitant to prosecute the Bush administration for illegal torture and wiretapping. Even though it's the most popular question on change.gov. Go people power!

NYT: White House Loses Legal Fight on Visitor Logs - Also on the subject of Bush accountability, a federal judge ruled against the Bush administration's attempt to keep its visitor logs secret. Knowing who visited the White House expands our understanding of improper influence in politics.

Dean Baker: The Washington Post, Which Said the Economy Was Just Fine, Says That We Can't Fix Health Care - The Washington Post, putting it down for the status quo since 1877, argues that we can't do much about rising health care expenses. Of course, their op-ed completely ignores that the United States pays more per capita on healthcare than any other Western country, with considerably worse life expectancy.

MyDD: A Drupal-based DailyKos - Shai Sachs argues for the development of a Drupal-based Daily Kos clone that progressive bloggers can adapt when building their sites. Saving SoapBlox is an admirable endeavor, and the service is a key piece of progressive infrastructure. Still, it's not safe to put so much power in the hands of one individual or even institution, or a proprietary platform that few people use. An open-source solution would be a powerful alternative.

Digby: Fiscal Madness - Remember how CNN unfairly attacked a stimulus proposal from the U.S. Conference of Mayors? They're at it again. This time, they're airing propaganda that uses the size of the federal deficit to argue against social investment. Of course the deficit is worrisome, but these stories skew our sense of budget priorities and unfairly undermine the case for a desperately needed stimulus package.

Politico: Sen. Voinovich to announce retirement - This makes four Republican retirement announcements -- it's no fun being in the minority. Barring a massive public shift toward Republicans (which is absolutely within the realm of possibility), the 2010 Senate map looks great for Democrats.

California’s Proposition 8: What Happened, and What Does the Future Hold? - This report dispels some of the myths about black support for Prop 8 in California. It points out that the NEP's figure for black support conflicted with other post-election surveys, and that much of the difference in support for Prop 8 across race can probably actually be attributed to religiosity. I was going to look at the same thing once the NEP released the actual survey data, but always happy when someone does the work for me.

Firedoglake: LGBT Hosts on SNL - We need more of them. Neil Patrick Harris is hilariously awesome.

Tom Raum: GOP urging restraint in stimulus debate - When Republicans were in power, they started with a surplus and ended with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Now that Obama is President-elect, they're suddenly urging restraint.

Jay Rosen: Audience Atomization Overcome: Why the Internet Weakens the Authority of the Press - He explains, "Jon Stewart exploits for laughs what I called 'the difference between making news and making sense.'"

Plus there was an argument between Nate Silver and Greg Mankiw over the stimulus.

Finally, Obama hits up the legendary Ben's Chili Bowl.

I'm sure I missed a lot of interesting stuff -- what have you been reading?

Wow, I hadn't thought of it like that before... excellent point.

Country first!

Awesome.

Just wanted to respond to commenters on reddit and current, who responded to my original post about Bush's approval — I'll admit that “Bush must be held accountable” is a pretty vague statement.

Bush did a lot of awful stuff, with torture and warrantless wiretapping being one of many offenses. Some of these are crimes and some are just bad policy. As a result, he’s pretty unpopular. Like all people, Bush has an ego and wants to be regarded more highly by the public. He probably notes that Jimmy Carter is more liked than he was at the end of his term, and wants to follow a similar course.

My point was that we can’t let him resuscitate his image. Bush failed because his ideology is flawed. It isn’t as much about prosecuting him as it is keeping him unpopular, disincentiveizing future presidents from doing the same thing. We can do that by making sure that in 20 years his image is as toxic as it is now.

The Obama administration is in a position to do this. They’re inevitably going to find more appalling shit that Bush was doing. At best, of course I’d like to see Bush and his cronies prosecuted. As Lance rightly points out, the Obama administration probably isn’t going to go that far because of political reasons. Still, all they need to do is leak what they’ve found, and the media and public will continue to ensure that Bush has a tough time redeeming his image.

John Cherry is apparently running for Michigan governor -- I wish him the best. A couple years ago I was an intern on the Granholm campaign and ran into him a lot. He and his wife were both really... normal. Just funny, nice, down-to-earth people. I've met a lot of politicians who were a lot less "important" but far more full of themselves. He might not be flashy, but he's very likeable.

It's going to be tough for any Democrat in this environment, but particularly Cherry. A lot of people (unfairly) blame Granholm for the mess that Michigan is in. Any Republican nominee is obviously going to link Cherry by extension.