I interrupt Question Day to note an important catch from Jonathan Chait, who blasts Robert Reich for calling the legislative process in Wisconsin a "coup d'etat."
For those of you who quite sensibly read Chait but wouldn't bother clicking through to Reich, I'll note that Chait isn't exaggerating. In a short item, Reich calls what happened in Wisconsin a "coup d'etat", a "coup", a "coup d'etat" again, and a "coup" again, plus for good measure twice refers to "strong-arm" methods or tactics. Without even a hint that the people involved in this "coup" are duly elected majorities in the Wisconsin legislature and a duly elected governor in Wisconsin.
Chait, who is in my view very partisan but also very honest, richly deserves one of Andrew Sullivan's Yglesias award nominations for this one...it's a very nice catch.
OK, but a better catch, I think, is this one from Krugman:
ReplyDeletehttp://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/03/11/the-rationing-switcheroo/
This is the first time I've seen this point made: the right's rhetoric about "death panels" violates the right's own ideology, since it demands unlimited government provision of something that could be, and that the right has otherwise argued, should be left to the private market.
Maybe Reich has also noticed the lack of hack liberal economists and decided to restore balance to the Force?
ReplyDeleteNot defending Reich here but... Gov. Walker has admitted that the bill he signed is fiscal in nature. He even canceled lay-off threats because of it. That makes it sound like these "duly elected" officials, blatantly violated state law. How is that not a coup d'etat?
ReplyDeleteUhmm.
ReplyDeleteFirst, "Typically, a coup d'état uses the extant government's power to assume political control of the country. In Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook, military historian Edward Luttwak says, "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small, but critical, segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder", thus, armed force (either military or paramilitary) is not a defining feature of a coup d'état." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'%C3%A9tat (I've been quoting Wikipedia a lot today!)
So, the mere fact that they are duly elected isn't sufficient to rule out a coup.
Second, the first line of Reich's post is, "Governor Scott Walker and his Wisconsin senate Republicans..." which seems to be, I don't know, a HINT that they are "duly elected majorities in the Wisconsin legislature and a duly elected governor in Wisconsin." I mean, I know it's OBSCURE, but he did call the duly elected governor...Governor. I am unaware of any internet tradition that requires on to say *duly* elected governor instead of just governer, but maybe that's just me.
Third, the last bit reads, "The American public may be divided over many things but we stand united behind our democratic process and the rule of law. And we reject coups in whatever form they occur." Which seems to be a clear indicator that it wasn't meant to be so very literally taken (or taken in it's core, military power seizure, meaning).
Finally, I read: http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/02/crazy-much-scalise-amendment.html
"Actually, I think that embracing conspiracy theories, or telling one's supporters things that just aren't true, is significantly worse than using a little violent imagery. I agree with those who point out that you really can't avoid some metaphors of violence in political rhetoric...I'm not thrilled with those who make it a major, recurring theme, but that's about it."
It'd be nice to live up to this, Jonathan, and to note that Riech was clearly engaged in some rather minor rhetoric that is, at worst, a little over the top. But, from what I can tell, not that far off. The Walker move really is an attempt to destroy the Democratic party and the unions. The moves are of at least questionable legality (if it does have a fiscal impact, it was straight up illegal, afaict) and it certainly involves lies and outright deceit no matter what.
This is a catch? Really? I don't have to think that Riech's piece was wonderfully written to say, Meh. Especially as it doesn't remotely feed any mass dangerous delusions (unlike, say, birther comments by elected officials).
Do I get a "Catch of the Day" for pointing out that your statement that Riech didn't provide even a hint blah blah is falsified by the first line of his piece?
ReplyDeleteBTW, I really wish people, liberals and poly sci folks in general, wouldn't be so quick to normalize obviously out of line behavior that's technically legal but violates clear, long standing norms. The "the opposition opposes; that's what they do and what they should do" is an especially tired variant of this trope. I don't think you have to equate what the Wis. dems did with what the Republican senators did in the health care debate. (I don't think it because they aren't substantively similar. The Republicans were offered so many seats at the table that we almost lost the table; the policy was part of Obama's campaign -- a big part; it is primarily policy, not a political attack, ACA (or similar health care reform) remains arguably popular); all of these things fail to exist in the Walker case and that really really matters; even if technically legal, it is a illegitimate power grab).
"It'd be nice to live up to this, Jonathan, and to note that Riech was clearly engaged in some rather minor rhetoric that is, at worst, a little over the top. But, from what I can tell, not that far off. The Walker move really is an attempt to destroy the Democratic party and the unions. The moves are of at least questionable legality (if it does have a fiscal impact, it was straight up illegal, afaict) and it certainly involves lies and outright deceit no matter what."
ReplyDeleteLies and outright deceit are irrelevant to whether it's a coup or not. I don't think Bernstein's problem with Reich's description was that it used violent imagery, but that it was gross hyperbole, as reducing a source of Dem funding isn't remotely close to seizing control of the state, any more than raising the corporate tax rate or closing tax loopholes for off-shoarers would be a Dem coup d'etat.
Hi Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI'm still meh. What's the huge difference between hyperbole (and was it really gross hyperbole? Unions are a part of our political structure. This is pretty clearly an attempt to destroy them in a sneaky way albeit with the cover of legal authority. Seems not to be far off analogy wise.)
And, how is raising the corporate tax rate or closing tax loopholes remotely comparable? Having a given tax rate or loophole isn't a fundamental right (like collective bargining) nor is it as core to the functioning of the corresponding organization. The fairness doctrine or eliminating corporate political activity seem closer which aren't on the table. If they were, the screams of coup d'etat would ring!
Isn't Bernstein's "hint" comment at best gross hyperbole? Why is violent rhetoric ok but mild, *acknowledged* hyperbole is not?
Anon 12:22,
ReplyDeleteCould be, but Reich isn't a economist, or at least he's not a credentialed economist.
Bijan,
Well, we clearly disagree on this one. If Reich had just used "coup", sure; it has a standard metaphorical use that would have been perfectly appropriate. Even "coup d'etat", once, wouldn't have convinced me. But four times sounds to me as if he really means that something extraordinarily illegitimate happened.
Now, it may be the case that Republicans straddled or even went over the line as far as legal procedures are concerned, but the courts can handle that (unlike, say, in a real coup d'etat). Again, I don't mind a bit of exaggeration, but Reich is clearly, in my mind, saying that what happened was fundamentally illegitimate, and I'm not aware of any good argument for that.
OTOH, if all they did was act creatively...well, that's what the Dems were doing, too.
Jonathan,
ReplyDeleteIs this use over the top?
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/07/a-corporate-coup-detat/
"Now, it may be the case that Republicans straddled or even went over the line as far as legal procedures are concerned, but the courts can handle that (unlike, say, in a real coup d'etat)."
Oh, like Riech *actually says*:
"those citizens will recall enough Republican senators to right this wrong...Be measured. Stay cool. Know that we are a nation of laws, and those laws will prevail. The People's Party is growing across America -- and the actions of Scott Walker and his Republican colleagues are giving it even greater momentum."
The laws or elections will prevail (unlike, say, in a *real* coup d'etat).
So, you've said that he didn't hint at their duly electedness even though he identified them as 1) the governor and senators and 2) at least twice says that peaceful VOTING is the way to rectify the "coup". You suggest that he means "coup" fairly literally (because he used it 4 times!) when there area slew of markers of its metaphorical nature...
Seriously. If you are going to parse this closely, finish the job properly (and watch your own words). Heck, just substitute "Outrageous action" for "coup d'etat" throughout and what's to complain about? That's all he's doing in a bit of colorful language to indicate that he thinks Walker is acting out side norms (thus somewhat illegitimately, if not illegally).
Part of the legitimacy of a government derives from it's being perceived (and its actually) adhering to not just laws but norms. You may disagree that Walker sufficiently violated them, but I think that's a reasonable point of disagreement.
So, yeah, I don't get it. You don't seem to be assessing any of the exculpatory, but have a "4 uses and you're out" rule. Weird!
It was a coup, in the sense that it involved coordinated (national) planning, subterfuge, and unilateral uncompromising action. In that regard, Chait's comparison to the health care bill is fallacious. That effort DID involve negotiation and compromise. Walker's coup was a fast-moving freight train barreling down the tracks to serve purely political motivations. There's no need to overly indulge in the too-typical liberal attitude of bending over backwards to try to understand and, if possible, rationalize inexcusable tyranny. That's what we elected Obama and the Democratic Congress to do.
ReplyDeleteWhat about indulging the too-typical liberal attitude about hyperventilating over "tyranny" that doesn't resemble tyranny in the slightest? Comparing Bush to Hitler was pretty stupid but at least Hitler had been dead for 60 years so there was some excuse. Talking about the "tyranny" in Wisconsin while people facing actual tyranny are being gunned down by their own government is inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to see some evidence that using "tyranny" is typical, much less too-typical of liberals.
ReplyDeleteJonathan, i'm quite disappointed that you don't address the really dreadful hackery of this post.
There's no sane way of reading Riech's post as claiming or insinuating that Walker et al achieved or attempted a literal coup. The evdience you mobilize is repetition (what?!) and the false claim that Riech doesn't even hint that Walker et al are duly elected. (Why don't you retract the last bit?)
The Reagan revolution was not a revolution. It's not a catch to notice that, either.
Reich empahsizes the ballot box and legal mechanism; Republicans routinely flirt with succession. The difference is huge. Riech is, I believe, trying to convey that we shouldn't take Walker et al's actions as legitimate and the way to do that is to *vote them out*.
I would really like to know if there's ANY analytical criteria that you apply when selecting catch of the day.
Chait is hacking horribly here...Reich's article is MIRROR IMAGE to the Republican behavior over health care, the election, the bailout?!?!?
Really. You cannot believe that!
Bijan,
ReplyDeleteI think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can only repeat what I said above -- I don't know what "coup" and "coup d'etat" mean if they're not strongly implying that what was done was not legitimate (not, that is, a literal coup d'etat, but something nevertheless illegitimate). And not just illegitimate because the rules may have been bent even to the point of breaking (which isn't clear to me, although it's possible), but in a more fundamental way.
I think that's wrong. I don't know of any reason to think of what Walker & the Republicans did there as anything more than normal politics.