Austerity & Uncertainty are holding back GDP

It's a day of the obvious it seems, but Suzy Khimm has a really great post up at Wonkblog that outlines how much in deficit reduction Congress and the president has already achieved, but also how those savings have depressed our GDP growth. This is, of course, I no-brainer. The government is part of the GDP equation and it's long been established when you cut government spending, you slow economic growth.

But perhaps more substantively for the future. Ms. Khimm notes that Barclays economist, Dean Maki, believes that only entitlement and tax reform can put the US on the path to greater economic growth. Quite honestly this is also pretty obvious. Companies have rebounded from the recession, but many are hording cash right now or looking for mergers and acquisitions to spend that cash on. One of the big reasons for that is governmental uncertainty. If you're a business owner you just don't know what the tax environment and entitlement is going to look like because there's tons of talk around making changes, but nothing has changed yet. It would be better for the economy if the government would do something decisive to give taxation and entitlement clarity to employers. Sadly, as I noted at length yesterday, if one side isn't ready to negotiate then no deal is going to get done.

It's Not Obama's Fault

It's happening again. History is being forgotten so we can be sure to blame the president for the sequester. The boo birds are out in full force attempting to double down on the same trope David Brooks rolled out last week and which I panned.

They say the president hasn't done enough, hasn't compromised enough, hasn't led enough to get to a deal. Ezra Klein put up a great post over the weekend about Mike Murphy's circular tweets. First the problem was the president didn't put means-testing and chained CPI on the table, but when Mr. Murphy was informed Obama had, in fact, put those things on the table Mr. Murphy derided them as gimmicks that don't amount to much. Ezra does a great job of backing out the backwards logic of this line of reasoning and I was prepared to devote an entire blog post just to re-upping what Ezra said, but instead Bill Keller wrote a revisionist history version of the Obama administration that needs taken down.

First off, Keller says that Obamacare was "an overdue but expensive new entitlement " Mr. Keller wants to have his cake and eat it too. How can it be that a social program, modeled off an idea from the Heritage Foundation, first implemented by a Republican governor, and that Mr. Keller says is "overdue" be a miscalculation? Obamacare seeks to solve two issues, first, the ghastly number of uninsured in this country and, second, the exploding cost of healthcare. On both those measures Obamacare is off to a solid start, though admittedly the cost curve isn't decreasing its slope as much as we would like. Also, since this is about fiscal responsibility, it should be noted that the administration bent over backward to ensure that the program scored as deficit neutral, even to the point that the GOP tried to bludgeon Obama over cuts to Medicare.

Second, Mr. Keller says that President Obama "tried to find a grand bargain with House Republicans, and failed." I think Mr. Keller forgets who walked away from the negotiating table. It was Speaker Boehner that rejected a deal because it would have included tax increases. Sound familiar? I don't understand how the President "failed" in this instance. He put spending cuts, entitlement  and taxes on the table and the House GOP just walked away.

Third, Mr. Keller suggests the president shouldn't have made the sequester deal and given in to the "blackmail." But what was the alternative? Let the government default? The president was facing an unprecedentedly impetuous House GOP that didn't think the government defaulting on its debt obligations was going to be a terrible thing. Come now, every serious observer at the time said, resoundingly, that some deal is better than no deal if we're jeopardizing the full faith and credit of the United States of America. To suggest otherwise now is to do some Monday morning quarterbacking.

Fourth, Keller doesn't think Obama should have made the deal at the beginning of 2013, the deal that kicked the sequester can down the road, but also secured tax increases for those making more than $400,000 a year. Mr. Keller believes "the Republicans, having budged once on taxes, felt no inclination to budge again." But I think this misreads where the current negotiations stand. President Obama isn't asking to raise taxes. He's asking to close market distorting loopholes and in exchange he's talking about serious entitlement reform. How radical an idea are closing these loopholes? So radical that Speaker Boehner supported doing it in November of 2011.

I'm sorry, but I'm just not buying what Mr. Keller is selling. Without a doubt the president has made mistakes in the negotiations, but you have a president who campaigned on higher taxes for folks earning more than $250k a year and won the election. You have a "socialist" president who has put means testing and chained CPI on the table for entitlement reform. You have a "socialist" president that has already agreed to measures that will cut $4 trillion from the long term debt.

This is not Obama's fault. This is the fault of an intractable opposition that would rather see Rome burn than consider doing things that it considered entirely reasonable less than eighteen months ago. So please, Mr. Keller, let's get the history right and keep in mind the scope of things. And let's also remember this: If only one side is negotiating, you can't reach a deal.

Calling Speaker Boehner

Matt Yglesias catches up with where I was back in July 2011 asking Speaker Boehner to, you know, act like a guy that's third in line for the presidency and lead us out of this sequester/budget/fiscal fiasco. Yglesias also touches on the same thing I touched upon yesterday, poo pooing David Brooks thought that Obama can singularly change the terms debate around these fiscal issues.

Beyond my snarkiness about who got there first, I agree with Yglesias' assessment of the situation, the complete absence of leadership from Speaker Boehner, the gamble the GOP made in 2011 that didn't pay out, and the broad terms of what the deal would look like.

The most maddening part of watching politics these days is the common knowledge that we know how to fix these problems. The method isn't in question. The only question is if the more sensible people in the respective parties can reach and sell a compromise. Perhaps that's wishful thinking. For now, we can keep watching journalists strain to blame both sides, instead of accepting the reality of the situation.

Dream on David Brooks

I'm not going to like this post. I'll reflect on it and wonder how I wrote it. I'll wonder if I was lacking oxygen to the brain or if the residual effects for DC Brau's Ghouls Night Out carried over into the day after drinking it.

Guys, David Brooks wrote a column that makes sense. Please pick your jaws from up off the floor. I still have a couple bones to pick, but on the whole I like what I read. Mr. Brooks wants  a "dream Obama" who would end the endless back and forth of the size of government and the individual versus the collective. Instead, Mr. Brooks would like this dream Obama to get past size and speak plainly that in 2013, the government isn't going away, and that the size of the government isn't nearly as important as the intelligence of the government.

Brooks wants his dream Obama to advocate to change the benefits regime of wealthy, elderly people and transfer those savings to the youth of America in a variety of existing programs that could use the resources. He wants dream Obama to institute a value-added tax and use the revenue to make a $100,000 income tax exemption and lower corporate tax rates. Mr. Brooks acknowledges doing any and all of this is a big political lift, but he believes "only the president can fundamentally shift the terms" of the debate. There is much to like, but there are some questions outstanding.

First, there are no numbers here and while initial reaction from more liberal minded folks hasn't been to pillory Mr. Brooks, I would be curious how the numbers play out in reality if you made this sort of fundamental change in tax policy in an abbreviated timeline.

Second, we face an environment where a healthy portion see almost no legitimate role for the federal government or nearly any government. Part of the reason Obama's second inaugural and the most recent state of the union speech focused so much on the value of government and the shared experience of a collective is because, honestly, that's no longer a settled question in the United States. Beyond debating the size of government, there are questions being raised about its fundamental role. Many of these questions had a broad consensus on both sides for decades. So, in part, Obama has to make this case because it's not a settled case anymore.

Third, I think Brooks overstates the ability of the president to change the terms of the debate. There was, perhaps, a time that was true, but it's not anymore. I'd cite this article about Tea Party glee over the seemingly imminent sequester. There is a happy tone that Congress would almost indiscriminately cut the budgets of departments and that doesn't allow the apartments to shift money around to make the cuts less dire for essential services. (And please don't tell me that BS about how it's just 3% of the federal budget, first off that's a substantial chunk to cut after budgets have been set, second, in actuality, it's ranges from 5.3% to 7.8% just in FY2013 to the affected agencies which is draconian considering budgeted priorities.) Furthermore  those reveling in the sequester are already threatening colleagues who might want to strike a deal along the lines the White House has pushed for. Consider this quote from the article:

Barney Keller, communications director for the conservative Club for Growth, said Republicans who don’t support big budget cuts might face primary challenges next year.
“Many Republicans aren’t afraid of losing their job to a Democrat, because of redistricting” that virtually guarantees that GOP lawmakers will hold on to their seats, he said. “But they are afraid of losing their jobs to more fiscally conservative candidates.”

Redistricting and the primary system in this country is a double whammy undermining most any hopes of comity in Congress and greatly diminishing the president's ability to change the terms of the debate. I mean, you have very protected districts that aren't competitive in the general elections, just the primaries, so you have elected representatives captive to the base of their party. In that dynamic, what does it matter if the president tries to change the terms of the conversation? Doing so doesn't imperil that elected representative because his or her primary voters drive the results in the district, not the broader national, or even district mood.

I'm afraid Mr. Brooks will have to remain dreaming about his Obama and the policies and debate he would like that dream Obama to engage in. I think, substantively, Mr. Brooks is on to something but the well of our politics is poisoned and it can't be helped by progress in national polls. It can only be helped by a fundamental rethink of our electoral process.

More Flash, Less Substance for the GOP

This is becoming a sport for me, though I'm not intending it to be so. Over at the National Review, Andrew Stiles decries how Democrats are fanning the flames of the "war on women" by trying to pass legislation like Violence Against Women Act and the Lily Ledbetter Fair Act. I suppose one could hypothesize that the Democrats are pushing these initiatives because they believe in them, but Mr. Stiles assigns a more nefarious purpose:

Democrats have nearly perfected the following exercise in cynical electioneering: 1) introduce legislation; 2) title it something that appeals to the vast majority of Americans who have no interest in learning what is actually in the bill, e.g., the “Violence Against Women Act”; 3) make sure it is  sufficiently noxious
 to the GOP that few Republicans will support it; 4) vote, and await headlines such as “[GOP Lawmaker] Votes No On Violence Against Women Act”; 5) clip and use headline in 30-second campaign ad; and 6) repeat.

Now I'm immediately going to move past the pot vs. kettle name calling that could ensue when Stiles notes VAWA and I mention the PATRIOT Act. No, instead let's just consider how dejected Stiles must be, how cynical he must be to suggest Democrats push these policies. But if this is "cynical electioneering" shouldn't these then be issues where women support what the Democrats are advocating? Here again is more from Mr. Stiles:

The policy proposals Obama has offered since beginning his second term — gun control, universal preschool, the minimum-wage hike, immigration reform — may not be specifically targeted toward women voters, but the White House is keenly aware of what the polls are saying. “These are issues that play very, very well with women voters, and further put the Republicans in the corner,” Politico’s well-sourced White House reporter Glenn Thrush said on MSNBC last week. Universal preschool is an especially favorable issue, Thrush said, because “chicks dig it.”
On gun control, women favor “controlling gun ownership” over “protecting gun rights” by a 57–38 percent margin, according to a recent Pew poll. Male opinion is reversed, favoring “gun rights” by 51 to 44 percent. Significant majorities of women support proposals to ban assault weapons, ban high-capacity magazines, ban online sales of ammunition, and track gun sales with a federal database, nearly all of which measures are unlikely to pass Congress owing to Republican (and substantial Democratic) opposition.Recent polling on the minimum wage suggests overwhelming support among women for Obama’s proposal to raise the current minimum wage from $7.25 per hour to $9 per hour. Nearly 80 percent of women support raising the minimum wage, and 64 percent say they “strongly” support it. Support is significant among non-college-educated women (82–9 percent), independent women (82–13), and even Republican women (58–30),

So there you have it. Women support these policies according to the polls. Okay so the Democrats have advanced bills that have the support of a majority of women, and because Democrats have advanced these bills, they enjoy an elecotral advantage among women. Where's the nefarious part again? Back to Mr. Stiles:

None of these policies has a particularly good chance of passing both houses of Congress any time soon. But that has never stopped President Obama and his Democratic allies from pushing such issues as a means to achieve political advantage.

Wait? What? Haven't we been hearing from Republicans during the sequestration battle that they can only do so much? That the responsibility is on the Democrats to offer a plan since they control the Senate and the White House? Just so we're clear, when the Democrats offer up proposals that are popular among the population they would help, but have a hard time passing the GOP-controlled House it's about political advantage. However, when the Democrats want the GOP-controlled House to advance a bill that might get along with the Senate and the White House it's seen as shirking responsibility. That's where we're at?

But it gets funnier. The Democrats are absolutely crushing the Republicans in wooing women votes because they're advocating for policies that women like, but Republicans don't want to support. Now one would think the Republicans, if they are interested in wooing some of those women voters away from the Democrats, might reconsider their policy positions, right? Wrong. You see, the Republicans of today think it's a problem of communication. Sabrina Schaeffer from the Independent Women's Forum says, "There are ways to reach out to women, to address their concerns, without pandering, simply by finding a better way of communicating."

In the words of someone else's Yiddish grandmother, "Oy vey!" I...just....can't... Pretty much every "serious" GOP operative quoted since the election has advised that it's not that the policy position is wrong, even when the effing columnist says the polls are in favor of the policy, no, it's communication. If they talked about it better, they would be doing better.

I stand by my warning that there are some in the GOP youth movement that are likely to make the party more relevant, but good grief. Right now, in the party Mr. Stiles advocates for, you have another explicit suggestion that they need more flash and less substance.

Another False Requiem for the GOP

I don't remember 2005 being like this for Democrats. I don't remember a stream of pieces coming out about how lost the Democrats were. I don't remember 2005 to 2007 being wilderness years for the party. Maybe I was too busy partying to notice what was going on in that party. But it's not 2005, it's 2013 and the GOP, if the articles are to be believed, is convulsing in fits of equal parts disbelief and rage at Barack Obama's reelection. And as much as the reelection of the "socialist" other Obama is, the real head-scratcher for the GOP faithful is how the heck they lost ground in the Senate, when they seemed primed to flip it as late as September.

Well add another article to the documented morass of the GOP circa 2013. Robert Draper has a long piece in The New York Times Magazine where young Republicans outline how crappy the party is, how it's picking the wrong battles, and how the party is a tribe of Luddites when it comes to technology. Draper raises the specter of obsolescence for the GOP, more to drive home the Luddite angle than to doom the party. Still at a time when Karl Rove wants to throw money at "electable" candidates and Gov. Jindal tells Republicans to stop being the "stupid party" without proposing any substantive policy changes to the platform, the article deserves a discerning read for a few reasons.

First, absolutely none of the young Republicans that Draper interviewed were obsessed with, or dare I say, even that interested in social issues. Perhaps we have the libertarians in the party to thank, perhaps it's just a matter of liberalism's march forward, but issues around gay marriage and abortion doesn't seem to animate these folks. It doesn't mean they'll be going to the next pride parade or raising a glass at the next anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I just got the sense they were past it. They seem completely disinterested in holding up the social conservative banner.

Personally, I'm not surprised. All the polling data suggests folks in my generation and the heinous millennials on my generation's heels may not agree with gay marriage or abortion, but they're disinclined to fight it. They have gay friends, they likely know of someone who had an abortion. Indeed, those interviewed seem to think there are bigger fish to fry so let's move on to the next issue.

That big fish is the size of the federal government. Make no mistake about it, these folks don't want a bigger federal government. They'd like to see lower taxes. They are traditional small government conservatives in the tradition of Joe Scarborough without the arrogant bombast. But I also noticed a distinction between their comments on small government and the standard dross that fills countless Congressional press releases. They don't sound like a bunch of Ayn Rand fanatics. This isn't a rabid pack of fascists who selectively quote Hayak or Friedman. They see a role for government, like Hayak and Friedman did. They want that role to be smaller than it is now, but they don't want to burn it to the ground. To a large extent they reminded me of the young adults profiled in Missoula, MT last week. To this point, it doesn't seem like the GOPoobas are listening to these young Turks within their party, except to pay lip service. But that ignorance holds a warning.

It holds a warning for Democrats. These young conservative Turks might be behind progressive circles on social media, organizing, analytics, and grass roots efforts, but they're running hard to catch up. And more then that, let's be really honest with ourselves. This is still a center-right nation. This is still a nation of people with a near instinctive aversion to "big government" perhaps owing much to the messaging put out by Republican presidents since Nixon (with an assist from Clinton and Obama). If this circle of folks can break through, can move the GOP beyond social issues, beyond government demagoguery; if they rise to the helm of the party, I'd reckon it's highly likely they could win several national election cycles and force the Democrats into the wilderness.

It would be folly for Democrats to think we've moved the center of gravity in the electorate, even with shifting demographics. Rather, President Obama, in pursuit of a sensible compromise, has chased today's GOP rightward into the wilderness. And it isn't just a liberal like me that sees that.  There's a sizable group of young conservatives out there who want to make the nouveau GOP, a nouveau GOP that will win elections and cut programs Democrats believe in. Consider yourself warned.

A GOP Out of Step with a Generation

There was a great story in Sunday's New York Times about the twenty-somethings in Missoula, Montana whom the headline describes as "Young, Liberal and Open to Big Government." I want to take issue with the headline a bit, then touch upon what these attitudes mean for the GOP, and finally lambast the GOP in Montana (though not only in Montana) for its reaction to the changing attitudes.

First, a bone to pick. Read the article and tell me if you think these are folks dedicated to the much lamented "big government." I think that's a very misleading description of the young people interviewed, and perhaps says more about where our political discourse lies right now. The article is chalk full of comments and evidence that folks in my generation are pretty sure there's a role for the government in the world that extends beyond the common defense. Government can provide a safety net, regulations, and education. When I read the article I got the sense that the folks they talked to didn't want the government to provide for them. They wanted a government that could provide a safe and level playing field. They wanted a government that could serve as a safety net should the cruel twists of fate befell them. I think that's radically different then any conception of "big government" we hear derisively bandied about.  I would also suggest that the folks they interviewed weren't prepared to give the government carte blanche.

Will Wilkinson has used the term "liberaltarian" to capture this trend, though I don't believe he coined the term. There is the liberal acceptance of a proper role of government that is to the left and prone to rankle those at the Cato Institute, but at the same time these same folks believe government shouldn't legislate many social issues like gay marriage and drug legalization. Indeed there are many days I'd consider myself in that number. I think the government should provide a level playing field but that there's not constitutional way for them to send a reaper after me without due process (and what a novel way to apply the death penalty). All this is by way of saying that the folks they interview weren't "big government" folks, they were "smart government" folks, which sounds a lot like a president I know.

So you have a generation coming up that believe in a limited role of government and much of that limitation is centered around social issues. That's not an encouraging sign for a GOP that's been dragged by its right flank further and further out of touch with young people, many independents, and science. After the 2012 election there were many who suggested the GOP go on its own sort of vision quest. Take stock of its policies and disposition, take some peyote, sing Kumbaya around a campfire, trip out because it's the first time they'd inhaled, and come back with some different policies. That's not really what happened. Instead of going out into the woods they went to Williamsburg. Instead of deep, drug-fueled introspection they have given shallow, hubris-ridden self-immolating speeches. The "lip stick on a pig" quote has become cliche, and yet apropos to the GOP response to a drifting electorate.  But that's not entirely true though.

Consider the article about Montana, the party, facing an electorate its increasingly out of touch with has started to pursue a policy:

The victories rattled Republican state lawmakers, who are now trying to undo a Montana law that permits voters to register on Election Day. Republicans say last-minute registration creates long lines and confusion.

You know what they say, if you can't convince them on the basis of your ideas; steal their franchise. There's only one word for this sort of behavior: pathetic. Strike that, there are two words: pathetic & dangerous. It's pathetic because instead of adapting to the changing attitudes in the country, attitudes that aren't nearly as left as say Eisenhower's, you want to take the football and go home. It's dangerous because it's a deliberate attempt to remove the vox populi from the system. And all this policy is framed as a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

So, to review, young people appreciate there's a limited role for government. That doesn't make them "big government" liberals. And the GOP should have gone out into the Shenandoahs and embraced the cathartic effects of peyote (maybe even just go to Peyote Cafe, though that's a different catharsis), but instead they've decided to take away your vote because you're not voting for them. Man, who wants to go roast some marshmallows.

GOP Energy Policy

We're way beyond "Drill baby! Drill!" at this point.  Sen. Lisa Murkowski, ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee released a "blue print" of energy policy for the US moving into the future.  Brad Plumer, writing at Wonkblog, has the breakdown of nine key ideas from the blueprint.

Some of it is traditional GOP energy policy boiler plate. Open up ANWR. Open up off shore drilling. Slow down on the phasing out of coal. These aren't surprising recommendations. I'm not a big fan of opening up ANWR and memories of Deep Horizon are still to fresh for me to think we should go gung-ho toward off shore drilling, but some of the ideas around coal should be discussed. And there are a couple other ideas that I think Democrats could easily support.

The chief one of these would be to use the money now tagged for alternative energy subsides and putting it into basic science research around these energy technologies. This is a very smart move for a few reasons. First, if you're a Democrat you've grown tired of the "picking winners and losers" argument over these subsidies because there's an inconvenient kernel of truth in it. Second, you bring the resources of the government to bear to facilitate innovation. Let the market worry about how to commoditize the innovation, but let's support the base innovation. I would be hesitant that the GOP money men would come after this basic science program and such programs tend to have a weaker political constituency than direct subsidies do, but I think this is a great idea to consider.

The other idea I liked was the expansion of hydroelectric energy by building more dams and electrifying existing dams. The report cites Energy Department figures indicating doing this would lead to 300 gigawatts of energy. If the figures here are to be believed, that would mean we would bring enough power into the system to electrify fifteen New York Cities. The odds are slim you could get to the full 300 gigawatts, given NIMBY issues and water management concerns but this is the sort of infrastructure investment that helps us begin to lower our reliance on coal and nuclear.

Perhaps the most revealing part of the blueprint is an explicit recognition that we can and should lower our greenhouse gas emissions. The breakdown doesn't say whether or not Sen. Murkowski believes climate change it man made, but having it mentioned as part of her plan is certainly a step in the right direction.

This blueprint has the potential to be an incredibly important document should the Senate decide to take up energy policy. I hope it does and if this is where the GOP is starting from, we may be able to do a lot more to change our energy position and begin to mitigate global warming then I thought was possible even just a couple weeks ago.

Establishment Republicans on Offense

It was an interesting weekend with lots of news items, but one thing that's likely to get buried is this story in The New York Times about a new conservative PAC designed to counter the Tea Party's primary dominance called the Conservative Victory Project. In part financed by America Crossroads, the goal of the group is to avoid getting "Akin-ed."

Coming out of the 2012 election, when GOP primary voters selected candidates that should have won but didn't because of extreme positions, it was clear the GOP needed to tamp down on some of the "legitimate" crazy that wins primaries and loses general election.  But I'm left wondering two things:

1) How does a group like the Conservative Victory Project counter the fervency and passion from the Tea Party and yet still maintain a grass roots operation during the general election? Will the group tamp down some of its extreme elements at the expense of energy as well?

2) Will a group like the Conservative Victory Project be a moderating influence on the GOP? In the story they say they intended to follow the "Buckley rule: Support the most conservative candidate who can win." One might speculate that could mean a tact back toward the middle, and they well may need it. Even folks like Gov. Bobby Jindal, who warns his party of being "the stupid party" has been accused of just changing the window dressing without changing the policy.

Pot & Kettle: Rep. Paul Ryan Edition

On Meet the Press yesterday, Rep. Ryan was incredulous enough to say, according to the New York Times:

“When you saw his speech, say, at the inauguration, it leads us to conclude that he’s not looking to moderate, that he’s not looking to move to the middle,” Mr. Ryan said in an interview on the NBC News program “Meet the Press.” “He’s looking to go farther to the left, and he wants to fight us every step of the way politically.”

That takes cojones. First, as I've already talked about, I don't think the inauguration speech was extreme  or even immoderate. That's is, of course, debatable  But the part that really takes balls is to say "[the President] wants to fight us every step of the way." Now, where could he I learned a tactic like that? Perhaps from a GOP that had a professed goal of making Obama a one term president? I'm sorry, but after the past two years of GOP interference and intransigence what did you expect the President to do?

And Ryan, in the same interview, said Republicans are ready to let sequestration happen. That's not good policy and it has real dollar consequences on the ability of the government to function.

Where does the GOP go from here?

I took my shots at Lexington earlier this week for his post-inaugural column, but there's much to like about his post-post-inaugural column. He tries to figure out what the GOP can do now, after the President laid down a progressive gauntlet. Certainly it's a speech that rubbed some the wrong way, but what to do when you control, in the words of John Boehner, "one-half of one-third of the federal government?" Lexington strikes an even more pessimistic view than that:

In his speech Mr Obama painted conservatives as akin to a primitive tribe—intensely united around such totems as climate-change denial or hostility to gay rights, rigid in their belief that government safety nets trap citizens in dependency, and generally prone to mistake “absolutism for principle”. In contrast, Mr Obama used the inauguration to thank and reassure the loose coalition that returned him to power in November. In a cascade of lyrical stanzas he pledged his second term, in turn, to those who depend on public health care and pensions, to those weary of war, to women seeking equal pay, to gays seeking equal rights, to minorities angry about legal hurdles that seemingly exclude them from voting, and to immigrants wanting new lives in America. The president ended with a call for citizens to demand that politicians address that progressive agenda.

I think this is an excellent break down of how Obama cast his erstwhile Congressional opponents. To go back to a line I used earlier this week, what part of that vision do you disagree with? I think Obama found himself supporting issue after issue that, broadly, enjoys majority support by the American people. Surely elements of implementation will cause division,but the overall goal is supported.

Lexington goes on to note how the current incarnation of the GOP is more tribal and virulent, but that's not of much use when its traditional voter blocs are, "in relative or absolute decline, whether white voters, rural Americans or social conservatives." 

That fervency gives strength to the GOP, but it can also be the millstone.  Lexington points to people like Rep. Paul Ryan who want to get wonky and produce legislation in the house that shows Republicans have serious ideas and lauds there approach. Still he warns:

Parties evolve... And conservative unity is surely better than squabbling. But in democratic politics it is usually better to be a coalition, pragmatically organised around interests, than a tribe, sternly loyal to a creed. For today’s Republicans, intensity is a trap as well as a strength.

And so far that trap has meant lost elections.