Rage in the Streets Over AIG

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Rage in the Streets

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Personnel is Policy - Obama and the Progressives, Part 2

An interesting exchange last week on The Rachel Maddow Show, between Rachel and David Sirota, discussing some of Barack Obama's choices for his administration:

MADDOW: They are essentially sort of a center-right economic team, no big ideological choices there unless you consider sort of Clintonian economists to be a big ideological statement. . . .

SIROTA: Well, I do think they are ideological. I think they are center-right and they are, basically, a lot of free market fundamentalists. And I think that what Wall Street tends to react to is it likes some of its own. And so, Obama is in this weird position where he has to basically tell Wall Street that he’s going to have some of their own, but he’s also got to tell the public that he’s going to change, that he’s going to push a policy change.

And so, the tough thing for Obama to do -- the question is, is whether he can get some of the people who are at the center of this crisis, Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, and get them to carry, actually, radically new policies. That’s the trick for him.

MADDOW: Well, Obama advisors are telling the "Washington Post" today that his economic picks, the people who he has chosen, they don’t signal that he plans to govern from the center. They are trying to assure people that he is a progressive. The question is - it’s sort of policy over personnel here. Can he implement a progressive approach to the economy with those folks that are on his team in place?

SIROTA: That’s the question. You know, Grover Norquist, the conservative activist that says, "Personnel is policy." Obama is basically saying, "No, I’m going to be different."

I think it was David Axelrod who told the "New York Times" -- he said, you know, he’s not hiring people for their vision, he’s hiring people to effectuate his vision. Now, that would be unprecedented, to hire sort of ideological economic advisors who are going to carry out a more progressive ideological agenda from Obama.

But that’s essentially what he’s saying. He’s trying to have that -- basically split that difference and tell Wall Street, "I’m hiring some of your own," but he’s also telling America they’re going to carry a progressive agenda. And I think that’s certainly a new thing in our country.

MADDOW: One worth watching and probably worth holding his feet to the fire over, I imagine.

Some questions:

1) Is it true that "personnel is policy"? Many other conservatives besides Grover Norquist think so. Here's just one example, from a 2001 article from The Heritage Foundation: "Personnel Is Policy: Why The New President Must Take Control Of The Executive Branch."

It is often said, correctly, that personnel is policy. The nexus between personnel management and policy management is therefore crucial. Good policies cannot be advanced without good, capable, and committed personnel to formulate, implement, aggressively promote, and steadfastly defend them. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Ronald W. Reagan were noteworthy in this respect for making strong and effective Cabinet appointments and solid White House staffing decisions.

Why do conservatives believe that "personnel is policy," while most liberals seem to think that Obama will put forth policies that contradict those of the people he's hiring to be in his administration?

I don't have an answer.

But, if I may dip into football for a moment. . . . When Eric Mangini became coach of the New York Jets a few years ago, he implemented a new 3-4 defense - his new policies, if you will. The problem was that his nose tackle and middle linebacker had been drafted under the previous coach to play in a 4-3 defense, so they were too small to handle the new scheme. It was a disaster, both for the the team and for the individual players. Jonathan Vilma had been an All-Pro linebacker and the leading tackler in the NFL in the old scheme, but he was getting manhandled in the new one. Finally, after struggling for two seasons, Managini traded Vilma and some others, and he went out and got players who would fit what he wanted to do. In football, at least, personnel is often policy.

2) Is Obama a Progressive? Or does he have progressive policies?

Does it matter? Isn't there more to being a good president than your policies? Does he have integrity? Will he make good decisions? Is simple competence enough at this point?

3) If he's not a Progressive, will he be willing to work with Progressives to implement some of their policies?

Will Progressives ever be able to see Obama and his policies clearly? Can they achieve an un-romanticized, post-Bush analysis of the situation? Or do we just keep hoping Will.i.am makes another video? If Progressives misread Obama, and if they aren't organized and pro-active, will they spend the next four or eight years on the sideline?

4) What is a Progressive, anyway?

Do they have anything to do with the original Progressives, who worked with Evangelicals to push for Prohibition? Are they free-market fundamentalists? Are we just using "Progressive" because "Liberal" became a dirty word?

5) And what is a Liberal, anyway?

What beliefs do Progressives and Liberals hold when it comes to economic policies? Foreign policy? Social policies?

Jonathan Vilma, formerly of the New York Jets. Political Metaphor?

6) For the second time recently, an intelligent Liberal source - Rachel Maddow - has suggested that center-right economic policies like those espoused by the Clintons aren't ideological. A couple of weeks ago, it was The New York Times, as I discussed in my first post on Obama and the Progressives. I thought the Times was being disingenuous, because they believe in and push these economic policies, and I can see how they benefit by making them seem "pragmatic" rather than ideological. Globalization is inevitable. That's one of the primary Neo-liberal mantras to disarm opposition to their policies. Their pre-emptive strike against anyone who would question what are, ultimately, just theories.

But it's interesting to hear a smart person like Maddow falling for this line of thought. Luckily, in this case, someone could say - No, wait a minute, these people are ideological. "Free-market fundamentalists." That doesn't sound so pragmatic, does it?

7) Is it coherent, politically, for Progressives and Liberals to continue to support candidates with center-right economic policies? Why do they complain so much about the repercussions of those policies when they support and vote for the people who implement them? Why do many Democrats seem not to care or even know that Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA on the country? Or financial deregulation? Or media deregulation? Or privatization of the government? Does nostalgia constitute a viable political philosophy?

8) What is the relationship between the policies pushed by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin in the 1990s and the current economic meltdown? If there is a relationship, why is Barack Obama hiring so many Rubin associates and disciples?

9) What does it mean to be "on the Left"? What policies and ideas does someone on the Left in the year 2008 actually support? Is there a Left in the United States? How does it relate to the Left in places like Europe or South America? Do Progressives and Liberals belong "on the Left" - even if they support capitalistic, center-right economic policies?

10) Do linear terms like "Left," "Center" and "Right" do justice to the complex social, economic and political beliefs that most people hold? What are the alternatives?

11) Are you a Progressive if you're against Proposition 8? Are you on the Left? What if you're against Proposition 8 and you support the Colombia Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)? Are you still on the Left? Are you still a Progressive or a Liberal? Are you Andrew Sullivan? What if you're against Proposition 8 and you want to invade Iran? What does that make you? Hillary Clinton?

12) Will Obama push for passage of the Colombia Free Trade Agreement when it comes up for a vote in the next year? Will the new Secretary of Commerce, Bill Richardson, help him push it through? Does anyone remember Bill Richardson's role in pushing through NAFTA? Does anyone care?

13) Do I hold coherent political beliefs? Why do I dislike being thought of as a Liberal? Why did I leave the Democratic Party? Am I a Progressive? Am I on the Left? Am I in the Center? Am I somewhere a little below and behind? Can I be conservative in some things and radical in others? Can one be a Left Conservative? (Norman Mailer thought so. Is that good or bad?) Can you be on the Left if you get tired of Leftists? Can one respect some of Marx's insights and not be a Marxist? What if I listen to The Clash? Is it okay that I like The Clash but despise Communism? Have people on the Left ever really come to terms with the fact that their ideology led to such a horrible end? Can one respect aspects of Capitalism - like buying CDs by The Clash - and not be a Capitalist? Can anyone in 2008 NOT be a Capitalist? Can one respect aspects of Anarchism but think many anarchists are assholes? Can I enjoy watching football and still be a Progressive? What about my inexplicable urge to beat up Weezer fans? If I'm a Progressive, is it okay that I slammed back a few Brooklyn Lagers last night? Can I like Subcomandante Marcos but not like Rage Against the Machine? What if I like Fugazi? Is it okay that I hate the Democrats as long as I hate the Republicans more? Am I just a contrarian? Does all of this go back to not liking bands as much once they get famous? (How to explain my love of The Beatles, then?) Why did it seem like there was a Left in Spain but only Liberals here? Should I support the bailout of the automakers? Haven't they been part of the problem for decades? But what about all of the workers? Why have we given hundreds of billions of dollars to the firms on Wall Street that caused all the problems to begin with? Why did we give them so much money so easily but make the automakers beg in public for a paltry 34 billion? If we bail out the automakers, can we please, please, please stipulate that the Ford family relinquish ownership of the 0-13 Detroit Lions? Seriously. They've had the team for almost 50 years and have driven them into the ground.

13) Why am I writing about all of this?

Sigh . . .

Change We Can Believe In

New York Jets 34 - New England Patriots 31.

The Jets go up to Foxboro, Mass, and defeat the AFC Champion Patriots on their own home turf, in a dramatic overtime game, for sole possession of first-place in the AFC East. A very rare and gutsy win for the Jets in an important game.

Why we love Washington. (In 39 seconds.)

The Trade

In a stunning turn of events, the Green Bay Packers have traded quarterback Brett Favre to the New York Jets.

Favre is a future Hall-of-Famer, winner of Super Bowl XXXI, the only three-time MVP of the National Football League, and holds every major NFL passing record. The New York Jets are . . . . well, the New York Jets.

Personally, I think Favre can be overrated as a quarterback, and I get sick of the hype over him from a disgustingly fawning sports media who think the guy can walk on water. But I have to admit, I actually let out quite a laugh when I heard the news last night. It all seems so improbable.

For one thing, I was totally shocked that the Jets managed to pull off the trade. I didn't think they had the tenacity, or would be wiling to spend the money, to accomplish such a feat. As of yesterday afternoon, reports were coming out that Favre would probably go to the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Evidently, the Jets made a final bid in the middle of the night (literally - the news broke around midnight.)

Whatever the soap opera of the last month between Favre and the Packers, from a purely practical standpoint, the guy immediately gives the Jets a better quarterback than either Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemens, the two choices they had for the coming season. And they really didn't give up that much to get him. If he plays more than 50% of the season, they give up a 3rd-round draft pick next year. If he plays 70% of the time and the Jets make the playoffs, they give up a 2nd round pick. If they actually make the Super Bowl, they give up a 1st round pick.

Will the Jets make the Super Bowl with Favre? Very unlikely. After going 4-12 last year, I'd be happy to see them go 8-8 and stay in the wild card hunt for most of the season. Though Favre may be overrated, the guy did have one of his best seasons last year, and I think he can still play at a fairly high level. Also, after what went down with Green Bay, the revenge factor - the "I'll show you I can still play" factor - may be a good motivator.

Favre can be a drama queen. And personally, I thought he should've stayed retired. But, hey, if he wants to play football, and the Packers don't want him, I welcome him to the black hole of the New York Jets. We'll see if his greatness and stature as a player are any match for the long, sad and psychologically twisted history of Gang Green.

Whatever the outcome of the season, Favre is one of those rare athletes whose obvious love of playing football makes watching him a lot of fun. (Except, of course, when he's throwing those terrible interceptions in key moments.) One of my favorite football moments ever was watching him play in the snow against the Seattle Seahawks in last year's divisional playoffs. (Sorry, my Seahawks fan.) His youthful enthusiasm took me back to my own childhood and the sheer exhilaration and enjoyment of play.

Sadly, his arrival means the immediate departure of Chad Pennington, who will be released by 4 PM today. There are few professional football players I've admired on a personal level as much as Pennington. The man suffered two serious shoulder injuries, one of which would've been enough to end the careers of most players, but through hard work, determination and a great attitude, he came back and continued to play. When his father suffered a major heart attack, Pennington slept on a chair in the hospital room on his off-days during the season. He's one of the most intelligent, likable and quality players in football. Despite tremendous adversity, he always seemed hopeful, and in a realistic, determined way. But as much as I liked him as a person, he wasn't the answer for the Jets at quarterback. I'm sorry he's leaving the team, and I hope he lands in a good situation somewhere else.

Broadway Joe Namath's sad end in LA

The NFL is full of sad tales of great players who should've retired sooner and wound up on other teams at the end of their careers. I think immediately of the most famous Jets quarterback, Joe Namath, who spent one last pathetic season on the Los Angeles Rams. Or Johnny Unitas, considered by many to be the greatest quarterback of all time, in a dismal final season in San Diego, after 17 years with the Baltimore Colts.

On the other hand, Joe Montana, after 13 seasons and three Super Bowl victories with the San Francisco 49ers, played his last two years for the Kansas City Chiefs and led them to the AFC Championship Game.

Though he's 38 years-old, I think Favre is in better shape than most of the players in these sad stories. Namath was hobbling around on knee braces at the end of his time in New York. Favre, on the other hand, holds the NFL record for Most Consecutive Starts by a Quarterback at 253 games, a truly amazing feat. To give you an idea of the significance of that number, the previous record - held by Eagles' quarterback Ron Jaworski - was only 116 consecutive games. Favre is also playing better late in his career than either Namath or Unitas were before they were traded. Unitas was already riding the bench by the time he went to San Diego.

It's a strange situation, and I'm not sure how a self-admitted "country boy" like Brett Favre is going to deal with the bright lights of New York, not to mention the crazy and often brutal media scrutiny. The fact that the Jets don't really play in the city, and that the new team headquarters will open in New Jersey at the end of the month, appealed to Favre. There are woods and hunting in New Jersey, which, from one report, did bring him some comfort.

Favre will be 39 in October. He's gone to a team that went 4-12 last year. And he's suddenly having to learn a new system. Things may not go very smoothly. (But, then, they never do for the Jets. So what did they have to lose?) All in all, it should be fascinating to see how the story unfolds. I know one thing, my interest in the coming season, which was pretty low before last night, has suddenly increased.

Favre's coming to the Jets!

100 Yards of War and Peace - And a Poem

It seems a little early - no autumn leaves falling yet - but the National Football League kicks off its new season on Thursday night. I love football, what can I say. The Texas thing, perhaps. For some reason, I don't remember why now, I once wrote: Basketball is like a video game, baseball like a Whitman poem on a lazy summer afternoon, and football is Napoleon’s march into Russia. It’s War and Peace over 100 yards. I thought of that line again just a few days ago, as I was reading through various predictions for the upcoming season. Then, this morning, I see New York Jets head coach Eric Mangini refer to Tolstoy’s masterpiece in an article in the New York Times: “The positive thing about game-planning is the playbook goes from War and Peace to something a lot more manageable, because it’s so opponent-specific.”

What’s great about football is how it combines the gracefulness of dance, the intelligence and strategy of chess, and the sweaty, grunting, primordial struggle of one human body against another. It's the beautiful, acrobatic catches of Hall-of-Fame wide receiver Lynn Swann, who “took several years of dance lessons that included ballet, tap and jazz. They helped a great deal with body control, balance, a sense of rhythm, and timing." In 1980, he danced on stage with Gene Kelly and Twyla Tharp. It's Curtis Martin and Shaun Alexander, who have been the leading NFL rushers for the last two years, and who are also avid chess players. Alexander has even set up a chess-in-the schools program. It's the brilliant strategizing of Bill Belichick, head coach of the 3-time Super Bowl champion New England Patriots. And it's the goal-line stand, a powerful archetype of: “You shall not cross this line and defeat us.” Or: “We will, by whatever means necessary, cross this line.” One of the greatest football games of all time came down to a massive pile of bodies at the goal line - on an icy field in Green Bay, Wisconsin, New Year's Eve, 1967, with the wind chill at -40 degrees. The Ice Bowl. My childhood team, Tom Landry's Dallas Cowboys, losing a heartbreaker to the Vince Lombardi-led Packers. (Landry had been the brilliant offensive coordinator and Lombardi the brilliant defensive coordinator for the great New York Giants teams of the 1950s.) With time running out, Green Bay quarterback Bart Starr slammed through a massive defensive wall to barely cross into the end zone.

Bart Starr (#15), barely over the goal line, as time ran out.

I can't go away without mentioning James Wright. One of the greatest American poets of the 20th century wrote what I think is the best poem ever about football:

Autumn Begins in Martins Ferry, Ohio

In the Shreve High football stadium,
I think of Polacks nursing long beers in Tiltonsville,
And gray faces of Negroes in the blast furnace at Benwood,
And the ruptured night watchman of Wheeling Steel,
Dreaming of heroes.

All the proud fathers are ashamed to go home.
Their women cluck like starved pullets,
Dying for love.

Therefore,
Their sons grow suicidally beautiful
At the beginning of October,
And gallop terribly against each other's bodies.

From The Branch Will Not Break by James Wright, published by Wesleyan University Press. Copyright © 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 James Wright.

Luckily the Academy of American Poets (poets.org) has both the poem and a 1964 recording of Wright reading it at the Guggenheim Museum.

I don't know what will happen this season. Most so-called experts pick the Jets to be one of the worst teams in the league this year, finishing at 4-12 or 5-11. That's okay - I prefer the low expectations. Last year, many people (including yours truly) thought they were legitimate Super Bowl contenders, and they wound up 4-12. In a space of 5 minutes, they lost their #1 and #2 quarterbacks for the season. Future Hall-of-Famer Curtis Martin, who holds an NFL record (with Barry Sanders) for rushing over 1,000 yards for 10 consecutive seasons, and is one of the classiest guys in the sport, as well as one of the toughest, was seriously injured and couldn't finish the season. Kevin Mawae, another classic warrior, who once played for weeks with a broken hand (the guy's a center and had to learn to snap with his left hand, no small feat), tore his pectoral muscle and was out for the year. It all went downhill fast. So, fine, let's say they're going to be 4-12. Then maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

But whatever happens, I know that an epic narrative will slowly unfold week after week over the course of the next 5 months. There will be tragedy, comedy, drama, pathos, and euphoria. Like the best of all sports - and literature - there's a great story waiting to be told. And we don't know what will happen next.