Now, no one tell Josh’s wife that he sneaked away to post during his honeymoon. While Josh was posting from an undisclosed, but sunny, location, I was reminded of a much colder time: the weeks after the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994. Democrats were devastated; pundits were gabbing hysterically about the dawning of “prime ministerial” government in the US. That December, I returned from England and had a conversation with the historian Fred Siegel, a friend and mentor of mine. Fred said not to worry; he wished control of the House of Representatives on the GOP as, eventually, it would turn them into what the Democrats on the Hill had become by the late 1990’s -- an out-of-touch, Beltway party focused on the needs of the donors who fund their campaigns.

In Slate this week, Jacob Weisberg notes that this prediction has come true. “Interest-group conservatism,” he argues, has replaced interest-group liberalism -- with all its accompanying pathologies. Weisberg’s piece underscores what many across the party have argued: that Democrats must seize the mantle of reform. Embracing a reform agenda -- along with developing a forward-looking public philosophy -- will not only rid Democrats of the worst excesses of interest-group liberalism, but put us on track to do what the GOP did a decade ago: win.

(ed.note: Josh Marshall will be back Sunday evening. But he couldn't resist this one post from abroad.)

In the context of Social Security, what exactly is ‘solvency’? And just what are we looking for when we say we want to find it? I pose these questions because the president's new ‘plan' has placed them in a much higher relief for the following reason. According the Social Security Trustees' rather pessimistic estimates, in 2041 or 2042, the Trust Fund will run out and benefits will have to be cut by just over 25%. President Bush calls that ‘bankruptcy’. On the other hand, President Bush's 'plan' cuts benefits by about the same amount. And he calls that ‘solvency’.

Same cuts: one is a looming disaster, the other is an act of statesmanship. Go figure.

Now, there are some details and caveats. The Bush cuts aren't quite as big. He cuts a bit of a break for the working poor while reserving the full brunt of the pain for the middle class. On top of that he includes a private accounts-based phase-out plan and a ton of new borrowing. But then, as even the President's budget wizards now concede, his plan only keeps the program 'solvent' for a few more years. So it's not like it accomplishes much of anything anyway.

Yet none of this changes the essential logic of the Bush plan. And that’s where our attention should focus. If the issue is simply making sure that benefits remain equal to payroll tax revenues, that's easy. Indeed, we've already got that since the way the Social Security system is set up, benefits are automatically cut to the level of revenue coming into Social Security form payroll taxes and the Trust Fund. Just leave the damn thing on auto-pilot and it will remain 'solvent', automatically, from now until the end of time.

All the president has done is take the problem -- steep benefit cuts -- and redefined it as the solution. That’s not a plan or a solution; it’s a word game. And if we're really setting such a feeble standard, there are an infinite number of similarly silly 'plans' folks can cook up.

The point, I think, is that when people worry about 'solvency', their concern is not about something so trivial as a book-keeping entry. Their worry is that people like Social Security as it is today. And they want it to be there for themselves or, depending on their age, their children or grandchildren. Only there's a problem. And that is that in the second half of this century potential funding shortfalls could require cuts that begin to make Social Security into something very different than what it is today and what it was for those in the past.

Now, not every thing we want is possible in this world. And perhaps at some point some level of cuts will be necessary. But, as I said, I think they are what most folks want to avoid rather than being the goal, as seems to be the case for President Bush.

But, if changes become necessary, they are far from the only lever that can be pulled to put things back into balance. We could remove or limit the high-income-earners’ payroll tax exemption, the so-called ‘cap’. We could supplement Social Security with funds from general revenue. We could invest a portion of the Trust Fund in something other than Treasury bonds. We could nudge the retirement age up another year. Perhaps most immediately we could forgo the new round of high-income tax breaks President Bush wants passed – those which would re-pass or make permanent those from his first term. That in itself would go a long way toward solving the whole problem. Various mixes of these possibilities would solve the whole problem. And it is important not to forget that it is not at all clear that the problem will ever even materialize, at least at this scope, given increased productivity and immigration.

The important point is that for President Bush there’s only one solution -- big middle class benefit cuts. (And, of course, on top of that, lots more borrowing and cutting to create that Write House Holy Grail, private accounts.)

For most folks, that’s the problem. For President Bush, it’s the solution.

It’s his goal.

And that shouldn’t surprise you, since phasing out Social Security has always been what the president is after.

<$NoAd$>I am off to the family homestead in the wilds of South Jersey. I’ll be blogging a bit from there. Before I do, allow me to pose a question to the TPM collective that would help immeasurably with a debate I’ve been having with some folks in DC:

If you have to read a long magazine article (such as a New Yorker profile), do you prefer to read it: on a website, in a printed magazine, printed from a website from a printer, or not at all?

If you could e-mail me at kenbaer17@hotmail.com with your answer in the subject line, I would be most grateful.

The business of politics in the US has kept me from posting on the politics of the UK, and I have a lunch meeting in a half-hour. So, here’s a quick wrap-up of the British elections.

By now, you know that Tony Blair and the Labour Party have won a historic third term, but with a reduced majority of 66 seats. The Tories gained 33 seats to garner 197, and the Lib Dems increased their total by 11 seats to 62. This is a historic win for Labour -- and while a lot of attention has been focused on the reduced majority, they are still, by far, the dominant party of British politics. The Tories have picked themselves off of the mat and regained some natural Tory ground in the southeast and London to bring them closer to respectability. But to put it into perspective, the Conservatives are still worse off than Labour was after the disastrous Michael Foot-led campaign of 1983. The Liberal Democrats had a good night -- and now have more seats than at any point in their modern history -- but the Lib Dems have yet to break into prime time.

What the Lib Dems did do was provide an outlet for Labour rank-and-file anger toward Blair over Iraq. This Blair government takes power with the smallest percentage of the vote in history (about 36 percent). As the Prime Minister said today (which is, by the way, his birthday), “I have listened and learned.” What he heard was the British equivalent of a Bronx cheer.

While these elections are interesting for any political junkie, they are important for us as Americans. First, the UK is our strongest ally in the world -- and especially in the war in Iraq and in the war against terrorism. This election sent a very loud signal to the British leadership, across all parties, that there is very little upside in being such a staunch supporter of President Bush. I believe that Blair’s support of Bush is both in the strategic interest of his country and springs from his deeply-held beliefs about the threat jihadist Islam poses to the world (see Philip Stephens’ biography on Blair for more). Yet, with about 50 hard-core Labour rebels and a diminished majority, Blair will have to walk gingerly when it comes to foreign policy. And if, as expected, he gives way to Gordon Brown in a year or two, British support for Iraq – or similar adventures -- will not be anything close to automatic.

Second, there is a tradition of intellectual give-and-take between our two countries (Thatcher and Reagan; Clinton and Blair). Last night, Blair lost a good number of New Labour shock troops, and his diminished majority will tie his hands when it comes to pursuing innovation and reform in the NHS and other public services. Also, there are those who may interpret this election as a defeat for New Labour; they should not. Blair got hurt because of Iraq, nothing else. If Labour did not undergo the modernization project that Blair helped initiate in the 1990’s, it would not be in government today. As a Third Way fellow-traveler, I hope that this election and the eventual ascension of Brown to Number 10 will not dampen the intellectual ferment on the left in Britain. As we Democrats rebuild and do so in a rapidly-changing world, we need all the help we can get.

In Rochdale, just outside of Manchester, Lorna Fitzsimons -- a Labour MP looking for a third term -- was facing a tough challenge from the Lib Dems. So, who did the Labour high command send to help? Karen Hicks, Howard Dean’s campaign manager in the New Hampshire primary and the field director at the DNC in the general election. Fitzsimons, apparently not well-versed in recent American political history, told the New York Times that: "Karen is my ace in the hole."

Well, the Lib Dem candidate, Paul Rowen, must have had a royal flush because he’s the new MP from Rochdale.

<$NoAd$>Word just came in that the far-far-far left, Islamist candidate George Galloway has defeated Oona King -- daughter of an ex-pat African-American civil rights activist and Jewish mother -- in the east London constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow. Galloway is not just anti-war and anti-American, he is pro-Saddam. Read what James Forsythe wrote in the New Republic Online about Galloway:

Galloway, dubbed "Gorgeous George," has been an MP since 1987 and is regarded as one of the House of Commons' most gifted orators. He is also one of its most hardened leftists. "I did support the Soviet Union, and I think the disappearance of the Soviet Union is the biggest catastrophe of my life," he told the Guardian in 2002. The signature issue of his political career, however, has been the Middle East. Even before he was elected to Parliament, Galloway managed to persuade his hometown of Dundee in Scotland to symbolically partner with the West Bank city of Nablus. Since Blair became party leader in 1994, Galloway has been a constant thorn in the side of New Labour. His support for Saddam--he earned the nickname "the member for Baghdad Central" and in 2002 he wrote of his experience on "the crowded dance floor of a North African nightclub ... dancing with Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister of Iraq"--stretched the relationship to its breaking point. In November 2003 he was expelled from the party for what Labour Chairman Ian McCartney described as inciting "foreign forces to rise up against British troops."

As Forsythe goes on to explain, a Galloway win could spark a backlash against Muslims as: ”it could lead many Britons to conclude that Muslims threaten the country's liberal political culture.” Galloway’s win is a loss for us all.

I have BBC coming over cable, and my former housemate from Oxford on the IM (his Scottish better half has generously surrendered him). And there’s been a lot of cool graphics and the swingometer has done things I never thought it could do. But so far, only a dozen or so results have come in and almost all of them are from safe Labour seats. What we’re seeing is that in the rock-solid Labour constituencies, turnout is down and there’s about a 6 percent swing to the Lib Dems -- but Labour still wins. Clearly, Labour supporters are punishing Blair. What really matters is what happens in the battleground, and the only marginal to have come in is Putney in western London (number 53 on the Tories' target list). The swing was 6 percent to the Tories. If that’s indicative of anything, it will be a longer night for Labour supporters than the exit polls led anyone to believe.

In 1994, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown met at the chic Islington restaurant, Granita, and hammered out the bargain that made Blair party leader and set into motion the rise of New Labour.

As the polls closed in Britain tonight, two of my favorite ex-pat journalist friends decided to honor the evening by supping at this famous eatery. Yet, Granita has since closed and is now a Tex-Mex place called “Desperados.”

Yes, the joke writes itself.

My margarita-swilling correspondents report that the BBC was there looking for comments, but the only people eating at a Tex-Mex restaurant in London on election day were other journalists and Americans. With nothing to learn, they scarfed down their queso and headed to the polling place across the street. The workers there told them that turnout was at about 50 percent -- way off from the usual turnout in the mid-60’s. Odds are that the Islington left either stayed home or voted Lib Dem. Not a good sign for that healthy majority Blair needs.

And this just in: the BBC/ITV exit polls predict a Labour majority of 66. Wow. Blair may be a desperado by the time dawn breaks.

The polls close in Britain in just under two hours. C-SPAN 2 will be running BBC One’s coverage of the returns, and if you like political theater, I highly recommend tuning in.

First, there’s Peter Snow of BBC and his swingometer (again, nothing to do with Austin Powers). Snow is an institution. He frenetically runs across the BBC set commenting on each seat as it comes in, while at the same time giving viewers the overall electoral picture. Backing up snow is the BBC’s graphics that put the red-and-blue maps of US networks to shame.

Second, election coverage in Britain is more reality TV than public affairs TV. In each individual constituency, all the candidates hear the results at the same time and in the same place. Gathered in what looks like a junior high gym or a fire hall, the candidates stand together on stage with big colored ribbons on their chests. Then, without any hint of inflection in their voice, an election monitor calmly reads the results. I’ll never forget in 1997 watching government minister after government minister see their political careers go down the toilet as upstart Labourites beat them (the shock on Michael Portillo’s face -- and on Stephen Twigg’s -- when the young Labourite Twigg beat the Defense Minister in Enfield Southgate was priceless). And all they could do was grin and shake hands.

All night, BBC will go from constituency to constituency to get the results. I’ll be watching and blogging the results as they come in.

<$NoAd$>I’ve never been a big fan of institutionalizing constituency groups within political parties, even when they claim to represent me. But let’s hand it to the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) for sticking it to Senator George Allen.

Allen, whose eye is on 2008, is scheduled to give the commencement address at Pat Robertson’s Regent University this weekend. The NJDC called on Allen to condemn Robertson’s remarks on “This Week” this past Sunday in which the good Reverend reaffirmed his belief that the “out-of-control” judiciary is a bigger threat to the United States than al-Qaeda -– and even bigger than the Nazi threat of six decades ago. Allen’s spokesman dismissed the NJDC release saying that it “takes Robertson's remark totally out of context.”

Let’s roll the tape:

10:50:15 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (OC) But, sir, let me just stop you there. How can you say that these judges are a more serious threat than Islamic terrorists who slammed into the World Trade Center?

10:50:23 PAT ROBERTSON
It depends on how you look at culture. If you look over the course of a hundred years, I think the gradual erosion of the consensus that's held our country together is probably more serious than a few bearded terrorists who fly into buildings.

Putting it into context, how can the Republicans be strong in the war against terror, but embrace those who seek to belittle it?

<$NoAd$>Putting politics aside, I’d be remiss if I didn’t note that today is Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Remembrance Day. Sixty years ago this year, the Nazi death camps were liberated by Allied forces, and the full extent of the genocide was made known. Many of us have read the books, seen the movies, and gone to the museums, but as this event fades further and further into the past, it becomes ancient history to too many -- or trivialized too often.

While the day has a special significance in Israel and to Jews all over the world, there’s a more universal resonance to this day of remembrance: a day to reflect on humans’ capacity for evil -- and capacity for inaction in its face. Recognizing those frailties one day a year, hopefully could go a long way to stiffening our resolve when confronted with such barbarism in our own times.

I punched the data into the seat calculator and consulted a swingometer, but I overlooked one thing: the gamblers. While no one in political punditry puts their money where their mouth is, these guys do. And what do the bettors say? The average spread for the size of the Labour majority is 89 seats. Above the danger zone for Blair, but since it’s below the expectations of the polls which are putting the majority in the triple digits, it could mean trouble for Blair with his own backbenchers.

So what’s going on?

A friend of mine at a major British paper tells me that the senior editors at his august publication are not encouraged with the "mood on the ground" reports they're getting from their correspondents from various constituencies this morning. Like the gamblers, most of the editors are predicting a majority in the 80s, with one guessing it could be as low as 60.

Of course, this could be lingering resentment toward Blair that these editors are hearing in their own Islington echo-chambers (how many of your friends on the Upper West Side were convinced that Kerry was going to win?). But, take the reports from the ground, add in the wisdom of the market, and the targeted campaigns that the Tories and Lib Dems ran, and it could be a rough next few weeks for Blair -– and a rougher one for Howard. The reports in today’s papers are that the Lib Dems are making in-roads in Tory constituencies, meaning that like in 2001, they may be the biggest winners.

A battered Tony Blair, an invigorated anti-war Lib Dem party -– it has the makings of a bad day for President Bush.

Polls open in the UK in a couple of hours, but at the end of the last day of campaigning, a friend in the Labour boiler room sent me their compendium of all the latest public polls. They averaged the numbers from all the public polls conducted over the last three days, and came up with: Labour at 37.2 percent, Conservatives at 32.5, and Lib Dems at 22.8. Compared to 2001 totals, it appears that the Tory base has come home, and Labour has bled a little –- about 4 percentage points –- to the Lib Dems. Of course, what matters is what happens in the “marginals” or swing seats where the campaign has really been fought. Nonetheless, Brits obsess over the “swing” and use the swing in the overall vote total to figure out who will win what in Parliament.

Going to the BBC’s handy seat calculator -- which is almost as cool as its “swingometer,” which I assure you has nothing to do with Austin Powers -- we find that these numbers would result in a Labour majority of 118 seats, and Tony Blair would rest easy. But to stress again, it’s not how many runs your score, it’s how many games you win (Exhibit A: Gore 2000). This fight tomorrow will be a ground war fought in marginals all across Britain. It’s a turnout game now.

One of those guys slogging it out in the marginals is Steve Morgan. I have to give him and the folks at Morgan Allen Moore a million thanks for their invaluable election night guide. Democratic politicos know Steve as the guy who handles the foreign press at any major Democratic event -– New Hampshire primary night, the Convention, etc. At home, he’s the Michael Whouley of British politics (so much so, that their companies merged), the foremost Welsh expert on American football, and as of last week, the father of Cai. Congratulations, Steve.

Back to the British election primer.

The Dynamics to Watch: Blair vs. Bush. The absolutely single-biggest liability for Tony Blair is that voters think that he is George W. Bush’s “poodle” and that he lied about Iraq. In fact, the latest Financial Times poll found that 62 percent of British adults believe Blair lied about Iraq; another poll for the Guardian found a majority who say he’s not trustworthy. The Lib Dems have been relentless in whacking Blair on this, and in recent days, the Tories (who supported the war, but have a lingering odor of imperial anti-Americanism) have joined in. While Blair’s support for the war and defense of his decision in the face of withering and personal opposition is admirable, his lack of personal support has dampened Labour enthusiasm. If Blair suffers for Iraq, he only has Bush to thank. If Blair is toppled, there could be a noticeable cooling of US-UK relations.

Blair vs. Brown. The tension between these one-time parliamentary officemates got particularly intense in the months leading up to the election. Years ago, Blair made a deal with Brown: he would stand for party leader, make Brown a very powerful Chancellor, and eventually step aside for Brown to take over. Their tensions reflect the tensions within the party: to many Labourites, Brown is one of them –- not the slippery Blair who “sold out” Labour principles. After jockeying with Brown and allowing the distance to grow, the Blairites realized that because of Iraq, Blair needed Brown to bring home the base. Since then, they have been inseparable on the campaign trail. Yet, there are enough Labour rebels that if the margin of victory dips below the triple digits and gets anywhere close to 50, the pressure on Blair to give way to Brown will be great.

Blair vs. Howard. The other night, after flipping between the Daily Show and that new HBO movie about FDR and his struggle with polio, I caught one of the BBC’s top political advisers being interviewed on C-SPAN. He made the key point to remember about Michael Howard: “Not only was he a member of the most unpopular cabinet in postwar British history, he was the most unpopular member of the most unpopular cabinet in postwar British history.” The nasty tone the Tory campaign has taken in the final few weeks has only underscored that point. Labour wants to make the choice between them and the Tories one between forward vs. back; Labour success vs. Tory failure. Check out this Labour party election broadcast (scroll down to “Remember?”); it’s the best use of Barbra Streisand in a political campaign since her November 2000 robo-calls to gay households in South Beach!

Update: TPM readers are just verklepmt over my reference to Barbra Streisand above. Yes, it's not Streisand's recording of the "The Way We Were" in the Labour party election broadcast linked above. However, since the song was written for her, first recorded by her, and inextricably tied up with her, I referenced it as a Streisand song. Thanks to all the readers who wrote in.

Wow. One little attempt at humble, self-deprecating humor, and I am the poster child for all that's wrong with Democratic politics. I assure TPM readers -- those who very nicely suggested some books to read and those who not so nicely see me as an ignoramus -- that I do know quite a bit about Social Security. Compared to Josh and Matt, I am a novice. That's why it won't be my focus this week.

Now, I'm really off to the gym, and later tonight, I'll continue with the British election primer.

Despite living there for the better part of four years, there are many things I can’t explain about Britain: the instinct to queue, the bad plumbing, and how a culture with such bland native food can love curry so much. What I can explain are the basics about the British elections held tomorrow. These next few posts should set the scene for people just tuning in to these elections.

The Basics: 646 parliamentary seats are at stake -– 529 of them are in England, 59 in Scotland, 40 in Wales, and 18 in Northern Ireland. 324 is the number needed to form a majority government. Seats are allocated on a first past-the-post basis in each district. That is, it doesn’t matter how many votes each party gets nationwide; it matters how many ridings a party wins. Thus, it’s possible to win the most votes, but not the most seats -– a phenomenon that last happened in February 1974.

The Labour Party, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, holds a 160-seat overall majority and have had a commanding majority since winning election in 1997. If Labour wins re-election, it will be the first time in British political history that Labour has won three consecutive elections.

The Players: The Labour Party, led by Blair and his once and future rival, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, is the main center-left party. Blair has re-made the party into New Labour, shedding its socialist past, attracting middle-class voters, and proving that Labour can manage the economy -– and quite successfully at that. There’s a tension within the party between the working-class beans-on-toast crowd and the more affluent focaccia- and-roasted-vegetables set (think Quad Cities vs. Tribeca). Bigger than these class differences is the huge rift within the party on the war in Iraq. This is -- by far -- Blair’s biggest vulnerability.

The Conservative Party (aka the Tories), led by Michael Howard currently has 165 seats in Parliament. The Conservative Party today is like the Republican Party in 1940: a small opposition party of rural and wealthy voters that has to contend with a rejuvenated and dominant progressive party. After being obliterated in 1997 and embarrassed in 2001, the Tories are having a more successful campaign in 2005 -- one waged on the basis of social issues such as: crime, school discipline, and immigration. While – as James Harding notes in Slate -- their campaign lacks the big vision of Thatcher, the Tories stand to gain seats this election because of their careful targeting of swing districts and the mere fact that they really have only one direction to go.

The Liberal Democrats. Imagine if the Deaniacs split from the Democratic Party over Iraq, and you've got the Lib Dems. This is a middle-class party strong in university towns, and in odd suburban places throughout Britain. Led by Charles Kennedy, the Lib Dems have 51 seats in Parliament. Their pure anti-war stance has attracted many disgruntled Labourites as well as some Muslim voters. Lib Dems can play the Nader role in this election, siphoning off enough Labour votes to throw the election to the Tories or diminish the Labour majority enough as to provoke a leadership challenge to Blair. If there is a total Tory meltdown (a swing of about 10 percent from Tory to Lib Dem), the Lib Dems could become the official opposition.

More to come. But in my effort not to totally embrace the blogger lifestyle, I'm off to the gym.

<$NoAd$>Chuck Todd, the man behind Hotline, has an excellent column today on the National Journal website (subscription only) about the big issue looming on the radar screen for 2008: immigration. He writes:

There's a disconnect between the politically correct legislators and media in Washington and the general public on the issue. Call it xenophobia if you want, but these [anti-immigration] initiatives are popular with the public, particularly as the economy stagnates and some lower-income workers are looking for someone to blame.

Add in the possibility of a terrorist attack, and the shut-the-doors crowd will be clamoring for the Great Wall of Brownsville.

Chuck is right that immigration will be a big issue for both parties, but on the presidential level, I still believe that it stands to damage the GOP more. While many rank-and-file Democrats may have serious reservations about immigration, there is no Democratic anti-immigration constituency -– and in the presidential nominating process, it’s the groups and activists who count. The GOP not only has an anti-immigration constituency, they also already have anti-immigration candidates. One Tom Tancredo in the race, and the whole field can easily be pulled to the right. While the opposite dynamic could happen on the left, the ambivalence toward unchecked immigration among Hispanics themselves should put a break on that.

Matt has raised an interesting point: New Labour is to the right of Old Labour in relative terms, but in absolute terms, it is to the left of the New Democrats in the US. Thus, Matt says, why does the DLC and other New Democrats embrace Blair and New Labour and folks like the old guard at the American Prospect have its reservations?

My first instinct is to say, well England is England and the US is the US; chalk up their individual positions to their unique political cultures and history. But, it wouldn’t be so bold to attack the very premise of Matt’s argument: is New Labour really to the “left of mainstream thinking inside the Democratic party?” Read its latest manifesto. All things being equal (because it still is another country), what in it couldn’t conceivably been uttered by Bill Clinton -– or Joe Lieberman? Just because Britain has nationalized health care and stronger unions, it doesn’t mean that it’s a socialist paradise. Couldn't it be said that New Labour is to the right of the mainstream thinking inside the Democratic Party?

The thing to remember is that the main dividing line between New Labour and New Democrats and the more recalcitrant portions of their respective parties is a realization that the industrial age has come and gone and that we now live in a interdependent world which demands different policy responses in order to live up to the values of fairness, equality, opportunity, etc. that progressives cherish. If you drill down past the name-calling and the various issue positions, at the root of the divide is that New Labour and New Democrats are people on the left who have come to terms with -– and even embraced -- the market. In Britain, this entailed a more drastic break (one that culminated in the Labour Party repealing its Clause IV which called for the nationalization of the means of production). In both countries, it has resulted in a shift in how government provides for its citizens -– namely, finding ways to help people get what they need to compete in the global marketplace and using the power of the market to achieve social ends.

I don’t want to go on and on and on about this, and before the “netroots” starts burning my digital likeness in effigy, let me say that there is a lot more to say about this as it relates to foreign policy, domestic policy, and political strategy. That said, check out the relevant books on the topic: Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw’s Commanding Heights (which lays out the history of the rise of the market), Andrei Cherny’s The Next Deal (which only gets more relevant as time goes on), and although I have yet to read it, Thomas Friedman’s latest, The World is Flat, I am sure has a lot to say about this.

Well, Matt has certainly set the stage for my debut. I just got back from the dentist, so let me do the requisite introductory remarks now, and think about what Matt wrote while I dig out from what's in my in-box.

To start, let me just say that it's a real honor to be on this side of TPM. I’ve been a faithful reader of the site since the dark days of the 2000 recount when Josh’s first posts were glimmers of hope for a dejected Gore speechwriter stuck sunning himself in the Plumbers and Pipefitters’ parking lot in West Palm Beach while his future employment slowly slipped out of reach. I’ve been a huge admirer and friend of Josh’s ever since he stuck up for me when a certain liberal magazine blackballed me for having the gall of supporting President Clinton’s agenda. And, of course, over the past few months, Josh -- and Matt Yglesias -- have performed a real service by guiding us all through the complex thicket of Social Security privatization. But until the tan and rested Josh returns from his tropical paradise, that service will be on hold.

I must confess that I know just about nothing about Social Security. When I have a question, I call Josh. When that fails, I bother Peter Orszag or Jason Furman. And when I have a real retirement question -– that is, investing on top of Social Security -- I follow my grandmother’s advice: “Ask your Uncle Arnie.” So, for the next few days, we’ll be taking a break from Social Security and talking mostly -– but not exclusively -- about the biggest political news happening this week, the British elections and why we Americans should care.

I first went to England as a grad student in Politics in 1994. While I didn’t study British politics, just being there for the rise of New Labour and their eventual election in 1997 was an education in and of itself (you’d be amazed what one can learn procrastinating from the work you’re supposed to do; then again, if you’re reading this, you probably already know.). It, in turn, informed my own work on the rise of the New Democrats which I turned into a book, Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton (Kansas, 2000). Since then, I’ve followed New Labour closely, writing about it from time to time, and most recently -– and this is the last shameless plug, I swear -– this week for my column for the New Republic Online.

As we approach tomorrow’s election day, I’ll post as often as I can -- and as often as I hear from my sources all across the UK (actually, it’s just an eclectic group of my friends scattered across southern England, including journalists, politicos, political scientists, and the world’s expert on the 17th century English book trade). To that, I welcome the thoughts of any British TPM readers that may be out there. And, of course, if you have any good gossip or stories outside of the British Isles that need attention, now’s your chance. I got a password to TPM -- and Josh won’t be back until Sunday.