Josh Marshall

Josh Marshall is editor and publisher of TalkingPointsMemo.com.

Articles by Josh

President Bush's speech last night was pitiful -- not in his delivery so much, as in the thinking of his communications staff, which went for a largely technical talk, when a more personal one was what the moment called for. Having said that though I actually thought that Bush's decision, politically, may have been about the best he could do in a bad situation.

Few seem to be making the point, however, that the president's decision simply fails to meet the standard of simple logic.

Everybody realizes that thousands upon thousands of 'extra' embryos now sitting on ice in fertility clinics are going to be destroyed. The principled pro-life stance says that even if good could come of destroying these embryos it's still wrong to exploit the good that could come of it. I, of course, completely disagree with this position. But it's not an incoherent one, if you buy into the principles of the pro-life argument.

The principle is not unlike that which makes us recoil from the alleged Chinese practice of scheduling executions to maximize organ harvesting. As ethicists would say, it's the fruit of the poison tree. It doesn't matter that some benefit may come of it. The underlying act is wrong, tainted, impermissible and thus benefiting from it is wrong.

Again, that's not an incoherent ethical stance. The only problem is that that stance also prevents using stem cells already harvested from embryos. Precisely what President Bush has now endorsed.

All politicians play the 'outside the beltway' card and talk about getting out and talking to real Americans. As well they should, since DC is a very weird place.

But President Bush is pushing the envelope a bit. It's not just outside the Beltway, but the "heartland." And it's becoming pretty clear that when Bush talks about the "heartland" he means the South and the rural and small-town Midwest, or in other words, the states he won. Here's the President from yesterday in Waco, Texas:

I've told the people of the nation's capital there that I was coming back to the heartland to herald the values of the heartland, the values that make America so different and so unique. And one of those values is neighbors helping neighbors ... I've had the honor of traveling the -- the world for our country -- or went to Europe. And we're different, in a positive way. We're unique in an incredibly positive way. It's important for our nation never to lose sight of that ... We're making great progress in Washington changing the tone of our country. We're making great progress reminding people that the values of the heartland are the values that make America unique and different.
I won't belabor the point that the Bush-defined heartland (especially the South) tops almost every recorded measure of social dysfunction and pathology -- murder, poverty, illegtimacy, etc. -- but I mean, what about the deracinated and cosmopolitan coastal strips? Aren't we Americans too?

Let's follow up on yesterday's and the day before yesterday's posts about Clinton and Maureen Dowd. When I asked Clinton spokesperson Julia Payne whether the inauguration day exchange between James Baker and Bill Clinton had actually taken place, she responded: "The former president did not say anything of the sort to Jim Baker."

I followed up with Maureen Dowd too. Her assistant, Marc Santora, responded on her behalf: "Maureen says it is an anecdote with impeccable sourcing but she never discusses sources."

Is an 'anecdote' different from a quote? And anyway aren't there video tapes of the whole inauguration ceremony that would let us see if they chatted? Let's go to the tapes!

Today's Maureen Dowd column is a good example of the problem mentioned in yesterday's post. Today's column, needless to say, is on the Bill Clinton book deal. And towards the end Dowd reveals a fictitious chapter she was 'leaked' in which the ex-pres dishes about what appears to be a first tryst with Monica Lewinsky.

It's entirely clear from the context and the over-the-top quality of the leaked chapter that Dowd is putting us on. And that's perfectly legit. Talking Points has even been known to do the same some time.

But the alleged exchange between Bill Clinton and Jim Baker in Sunday's column kinda looks like it's just a put-on too. But it's not clear. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Is it a quote or is it made up? I'm not sure. Is anyone sure?

I'm not sure that we're supposed to be sure.

A couple days ago I took a harmless whack at Maureen Dowd for an error she made in her Sunday column on Al Gore. But I was even more interested in this paragraph.

At W.'s inauguration, as Bill Clinton and Al Gore walked down the stairs, Bill stopped at James Baker's row. "You were good in Florida, man, damn good," Elvis told the Velvet Hammer. Gesturing toward Mr. Gore, he went on: "But if this [epithet] would've listened to me and put me out on the trail, you'd of never had the chance to be good."
Where's that quote from? I follow politics pretty closely and I've never heard it before. Not even as scuttlebut. More to the point, the quote sounds a bit like what we sometimes call a story that's too good to check. In other words, it sounds a bit too good.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying Clinton didn't say this. He very well may have. He certainly believes in the premise of the quote. But without a clue about the source it's hard to evaluate its credibility.

So where's the sourcing? Where's the quote from? I doubt Hillary or Bill gave it to her. Was it Jim Baker? Al Gore? Who?

There are any number of dishonesties and distortions trucked out to hide the essentially ideological nature of the stakes involved in the Social Security privatization debate. (If you want to see one of the more shambling and pitiful examples read this article.)

But one of the most enduring is the contention that Social Security makes about a 2% annual rate of return and that a privatized version of Social Security would make perhaps three times that rate -- in the neighborhood of 6% or 7% annually.

The idea is that Social Security is so ineptly managed because it's in the hands of the government rather than the market. But this is a classic example of an inherently dishonest analogy. One of the key reasons the "rate of return" for Social Security is low is that much of the money that goes into Social Security goes into payments that aren't strictly for retirement, but rather ones that buffer or spread around the risks inherent in life.

Let me give you an example.

When I was twelve my mother died, rather suddenly. She was thirty-seven.

On my behalf, for the next six years, and on my sister's behalf for the next fourteen years (i.e., until we were eighteen), my father received checks from the Social Security administration to help raise us.

I don't remember precisely but I think these checks were for a few hundred dollars a month for each of us. Maybe two-hundred something; I'm not sure.

At the time she died my mother was thirty-seven, so in theory she had been of working age for fifteen years. But for much of my childhood she either didn't work or worked part-time. So figure, rounding out, that there were perhaps ten years in which she was paying into Social Security, and all of those at relatively low-paying jobs.

I could run the numbers if I had more specific receipts and check-stubs here with me, but the point is pretty clear: Social Security paid out far, far more to my mother's minor children than she ever paid in. So her extremely high "rate of return" - to use what is obviously in this case a fairly misleading phrase - was very high and it pulled everyone else's down a bit.

Let's think for a moment about why this is.

The idea here isn't that her pay-in had accumulated such-and-such rate of return but that this was part of the money she would have put toward raising us had she not died (thus the cut-off at age eighteen). This is an ethical and public policy decision, not a market one. Not only could she not make that money, for obvious reasons. But the money she had paid in wasn't enough to accomplish very much. So what happened was that, under the rules of Social Security, a bit of everyone else's money was diverted toward her children, just as it routinely is for the surviving children of countless others around the country. A part of the financial consequences of her misfortune was spread out among everyone else. Social Security isn't just a big investment pool, it's also a social compact. Or, as public policy types would say, social insurance.

This is a good example of why the issues surrounding Social Security reform aren't really computational as much as they are social and ethical and ideological.

Social Security - as currently structured - represents a sort of nation-wide social compact against the vicissitudes and tragedies of our existence. We know that a certain percentage of us will die early with obligations to our children still outstanding, or we will become disabled and unable to work, and many of those down the income scale won't have made enough yet when they die to have built up funds of cash for their children. That's where Social Security comes in. Social Security isn't just a particularly poorly managed 401(k) plan it's a vast social program in which we share risk, or to put it more immediately, in which we collectively look out for each other.

When privatizers say you could get much better returns in privatized accounts one of the things they're saying is that this part of Social Security would just be dropped. That it's every man and woman for him or herself. That for widows, and the disabled, and orphans or kids whose parents die, that it's just tough *#$&. Or if your private account goes south? Well, that's tough #@$* too. (Not only is privatized Social Security not secure, it's also not social.)

Whether we should have the current kind of Social Security or the privatized version is a debate well worth having. But the privatizers are deeply committed to having the debate on dishonest terms.

Which makes sense, since it's probably the only way they can win.

Among Dems today, you've got plenty of Clinton loyalists and plenty of Gore loyalists. But not too many Clinton-Gore loyalists. In fact, hardly any. This is not just because they're so different personally. It's also because they now both carry a whole theory of Democratic politics trailing behind them like a string of tin cans trailing behind a newlyweds' car.

To Clintonites, of course, Clinton provided Gore with might may have been the most well executed assist in political history: a roaring economy, a troubled opposition party, every negative social indicator down, every positive one up, etc. etc. etc.

To the Gore folks, Gore never really had a chance, given the bad feelings over impeachment. Clinton, through his own reckless indulgence and irresponsibility, screwed things up for all Democrats in 2000 and particularly for Al Gore. Even the party's problems over social and cultural issues in the heartland -- that's really just about Clinton getting it on with Monica.

My problem is that I am a Clinton-Gore loyalist. I really, really like both these guys. Why that is I'm not completely certain, since they're so very different, and in some sense liking the one should make liking the other an impossibility.

Perhaps Clinton appeals to my inner Clinton (protean, reckless, ingenious, indomitable, always waiting till the last minute) and Gore appeals to my inner Gore (clunky rectitude, loyal, genuine, self-mocking, ardent, serious, earnest, shy). Okay, let's stop there. This is getting a bit too personal and more than a little embarrassing.

Back to the topic at hand.

Like so many long-standing differences of interpretation, the truth is that both of these theories of what happened in 2000 are true. Or at least both are true in parts. It's a bad sign that more in the party don't recognize this. And it's something that needs to get worked out if Dems are going to be able to think clearly about 2004.

We'll be saying much, much more about this.

This article in today's Post by Susan Schmidt and Bill Miller says the US Attorney's office is considering ramping up the obstruction investigation against Gary Condit and his top aides. The article doesn't quite say so but there's a pretty obvious implication to this: that the Feds do think Condit may be involved, since why else would pursuing the obstruction case help kick-start the Levy investigation.

On the other hand, now that Susan Schmidt's heading up the case for the Post you've got to figure that the odds of Condit's being completely innocent have just risen dramatically.

I've always marveled at those not-infrequent Maureen Dowd columns that have a gazillion adjectives, three dozen clever phrases or riffs, and no discernible narrative structure or point whatsoever. But this example from this morning's paper particularly caught my eye.

Does Mr. Gore really think that all the Ken dolls — John Edwards, Evan Bayh, John Kerry — much less his eager ex-protégé, Joe Lieberman, will simply step aside and say, "Oh, O.K., Al, you go again"?

Maureen Dowd
August 5th, 2001
New York Times

Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a charismatic midwestern moderate regularly mentioned as a leading prospect for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004, took himself out of the running last week, saying he wanted to spend as much time as possible with his twin 5-year-old sons.

Ben White
June 17th 2001
Washington Post

Even frothy columns need fact-checking, right?

Hey, what's the deal with that beard!?!? Is that Al Gore? I mean, look, I've gotta admit, I think it looks pretty good.

Anyway, on more substantive matters, Gore does seem to be making his first tentative steps out of his wisely self-imposed post-election exile. He's apparently going to start out by campaigning for New Jersey gubernatorial candidate Jim McGreevey this Fall.

I was talking to a New Dem friend of mine a few days ago who wonders whether Gore will "torment" Democrats with another run at the White House in 2004. He's certainly not the only one who feels that way. But I'll be honest, I've still got a very soft spot in my heart for the guy. And it ain't just because of the beard!

We'll be saying more about this.