Spencer Critchley

Politics & Society

Ice Cream Tells the Story of How the Stimulus Worked (VIDEO)

by

Written for the Huffington Post. Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent, and millions of words were argued. And now a little ice cream shop in Santa Cruz, California has made it clear why the stimulus program was worth it.

The facts say the stimulus worked, as in the recent Congressional Budget Office report showing millions of jobs saved or created plus solid increases in GDP.

But more powerful than facts are stories, like the one told in this video, by the owners of the new Penny Ice Creamery in Santa Cruz:

Kendra Baker and Zachary Davis, the owners of the shop, describe how the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) made it possible for them to get the loan they used to open their business. They hired service providers and employees, bought equipment (US-made) and supplies (from local vendors), and now have a thriving store that’s helping to boost the economy of downtown Santa Cruz. They made the video because they wanted to thank President Obama; their senators, Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer; and their congressman, Sam Farr.

These ice cream entrepreneurs make the case that many a politician has struggled with. They drive it home simply by cutting from one person to another saying, “They hired me… and they hired me… and they hired me.”

That’s basically the way stimulus spending should work when credit stalls in a recession, and that’s the way it did work this time.

Why Karl Rove Wants to Buy the Race for California Attorney General

by

Written with Zach Friend for the Huffington Post. And now, the empire strikes back.

So far, the story of the 2010 election has been dominated by the Tea Party and its imitation of the grassroots organizing techniques of Obama for America. But in the late stages of the battle, raw corporate power is revealing itself, aiming to win the old-fashioned way: with a well-directed torrent of money.

And that money is being aimed not just at races for Congress and state houses but, to a surprising extent, at down-ballot campaigns — most remarkably, at the campaign for Attorney General of California.

An article in Monday’s Sacramento Bee notes that the Virginia-based Republican State Leadership Committee (RSLC) has dropped more than $1 million in last minute attack TV ads against Democrat Kamala Harris.

What is the Republican State Leadership Committee? A corporate front group, one of several being coordinated by old school Republican kingpins Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie.

It may be the first time that a national organization like the RSLC has entered into the state’s attorney general race, especially with such a large outlay. That race, between Harris and Republican Steve Cooley, is just outside the margin of error.

Why would Karl Rove and Ed Gillespie care so much who ends up as the California AG? It looks like they’re looking well beyond next Tuesday, and trying to resurrect the long game Rove boasted about when he steered George W. Bush to power: the promised decades of Republican dominance.

Kamala Harris is a logical target. She has had an impressive rise on the way to her current post as District Attorney of San Francisco. She is California’s first African-American DA, and has scored big successes in that office, showing a combination of toughness and brains. If she wins next week, she would be the state’s first female Attorney General. She is also a friend and early supporter of Barack Obama. It seems obvious that Rove and Gillespie should fear Harris’ potential to win higher office. Many former Attorneys General have been governors, members of congress, and presidential candidates.

When asked whether the RSLC wants to block Harris’ further ascent, their spokesman told the Bee “if that is a byproduct of defeating her, we’re perfectly happy with that.”

Recent campaign expenditure reports show the RSLC has raised well over $60 million. Factcheck.org notes that they are funded by the largest of large corporations and their friends, including Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Devon Energy and the US Chamber of Commerce.

Although its activity in California is apparently a new development, the RSLC has roots in the Bush Administration, having been founded in 2002, with the objective of defeating Democrats in state campaigns, including for lieutenant governor, attorney general and secretary of state. According to a recent Politico article, it is one of five related groups Gillespie and Rove are now steering. They are all benefiting from the huge amounts of corporate cash freed up in part by the egregious Citizens United decision earlier this year, which enabled anonymous donations by corporations and organizations. Compare the RSLC’s $60 million in fundraising this cycle to expenditures of about $20 million in each of 2006 and 2008, according to Factcheck.org.

It all may add up to a restoration of the good old days, before the GOP had to pretend it cared about the grassroots: the days of massive corporate-funded attacks in the media, safely away from all that messy face-to-face campaigning. Picking up where they left off, Rove and Gillespie are now able to direct their fire broader and deeper than they ever have before.

What If Democrats Could Just Say What They Believe?

by

Written for the Huffington Post. Less than two years after Barack Obama ran a free master class in political communications, too many Democrats act like it never happened. Too many are back to parsing polls, searching for what they should say to connect with voters. A little less about the economy? A little more? Better check a poll!

You know what connects with voters? The sense that you’re saying what you actually believe.

A recent Democracy Corps memo got a lot of attention for reporting that voters are not responding to the Democrats’ message of “go forward, not back.” According to the corps’ polling, Democratic candidates need to focus on frames of “change Washington, pro-middle class, against Wall Street.”

Maybe so. But I’m reminded of an earlier Democracy Corps poll, from 2005, which found that 55 percent of voters knew what Republicans stood for, and only 27 percent knew that about Democrats.

It wasn’t a judgment of honesty — people just actually didn’t know.

I think it’s because too many Democratic candidates are unable to make clear, simple statements of their heartfelt convictions — it’s not that they don’t have them, they just can’t say them. Instead, they choose from a menu of policy positions, emphasizing this one or that one depending on what the polls say that week. But policy positions, no matter how worthy, say nothing about what’s in your heart. And it’s what’s in your heart that voters want to know about.

No matter how modern we think we are, elections are still about choosing a tribal leader: We want the strong, trustworthy one.

That is the meta-message of all political communication, and it out-weighs the actual message. It’s why confident absurdities like Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell or Glenn Beck have followers. For all their (you would think) obvious failings, they can at least act like they’re stating deeply held beliefs.

Imagine if more Democrats were crazy enough to just stand up for health care reform because it was the right thing to do. Nuts, right? Well, let’s try it on for size anyway. Imagine if Americans heard a few more speeches that went something like this:

You’re damn right I voted for health care reform. I’m proud of that vote. Who wouldn’t vote to reform an expensive, wasteful system that denies care to sick people — to sick children? These people who are trying to scare you with talk of death panels — they know it’s a lie. And they know we already have death panels — at insurance companies that deny coverage to the people who need it. Who wouldn’t vote to reform a health care system that kills people unnecessarily?

I’ll tell you who: people who work for the insurance companies, not for you. That would be the Republican Party. When the health insurance companies need something, Republicans come running. When you need something, forget it.

The poll-driven among us might say, “Oh no, health care isn’t testing well in this district.” Maybe not surprising, when it’s read by a pollster’s phone caller. But how about when it’s delivered with passionate commitment by someone who, we hope, projects some personal authority? In September, we saw Democratic numbers improve, with some pundits suggesting it’s because more Dem candidates were counter-attacking. I’d bet it wasn’t because of any magic new messaging, but because you simply look stronger when you stop letting bullies stick your head in the toilet. (That and the often overlooked effects of good old fashioned field organizing, but that’s another post.)

I’m not naive enough to think polls can be ignored. But polls can’t tell you how to be a leader. Just like yesterday’s financial news, polls are a trailing indicator, and chasing them is a loser’s game. In politics, like in finance, there’s no reward without risk.

In politics, though, you can be rewarded for simply being seen to take a risk, even if that risk is not the right one. How many times did George W. Bush get a pass for that?

I think Democrats have a hard time figuring this out — precisely because they’re trying to figure it out. We’re the party of reason. A lot of us want to believe there’s a science to this, and polls seem to promise that.

Well, there is no science that can make a leader. Leadership is about character. And if people can’t find real character, they’ll settle for a character, like from a bad movie.

But look what happened in 2008, when the real thing came along: swept aside every poll there was, and led all the way to a landslide.

Sympathy for the Far Right: Their Real Opponent Is Reality

by

Written for the Huffington Post. When people on the far right say things that are obviously and outrageously false, liberals tend to conclude it’s because they’re either ignorant or dishonest. I think this is too easy — and not very helpful.

Not that it’s never true. On the one hand, you see the Tea Partier with the misspelled sign, who probably doesn’t grasp how badly he’s being played by corporate lobbyists. On the other hand you see Glenn Beck, who knows the facts but doesn’t care. Trumping them both is Sarah Palin, effortlessly combining ignorance and dishonesty.

But these characters don’t tell the whole story. Not all Tea Partiers are dupes, and not all Glenn Beck fans share his lack of integrity. It’s worth remembering: If you think you’re simply smarter or morally superior to your opponents, you’re probably missing something important.

I believe we need to listen more carefully to the far right. In particular, we need to appreciate the deep sincerity with which many of them believe glaringly obvious falsehoods. Many are educated, moral people. And yet they passionately insist on fictions, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

I think their problem is not with the truth. It’s with reality.

I was struck by this while listening to a congressional candidates debate Saturday (10/23/2010) on KSCO-AM, a right-wing talk radio station here on the Central Coast of California. The Libertarian and Republican candidates, along with the host, made a series of claims along the lines of Congress being rife with socialists* or that we now live under “tyranny”. The Democratic candidate, incumbent Sam Farr, characterized this nonsense as “toxic talk”. (Disclosure: Sam Farr is a client of my firm’s new media services.)

The right wingers appeared to be, and I think genuinely were, stung by Farr’s comment. The host stated proudly his station would never, ever feature toxic talk. He then went into an extended promo for a live appearance by Alex Jones, whose syndicated program is on this station five days a week. Jones claims that President Obama is trying to turn America into Nazi Germany, that FEMA is setting up death camps, that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks, and that the “New World Order”, which supposedly includes our government, plans to exterminate 80% of the world’s population.

The problem here was not ignorance. The host, who also happens to be the station owner, knows what’s on his air every day. And I really don’t think it was dishonesty. There was real conviction in his voice, and in those of the two right-wing candidates.

The issue here was reality.

Setting aside the hopelessly ignorant and the irredeemably dishonest, we need to engage with the many people in this country who just refuse to accept the reality we have, and who are pouring their energy into creating an alternate, fictional one.

Yes, oil companies and their mouthpieces will deliberately lie about global warming. And yes, some of their targets are people who were unable to make sense of high school science. But many global warming deniers are both sincere and intelligent. It doesn’t matter how much evidence shows that people are contributing to climate change, these people don’t want it to be true — and they believe they can make it not true.

Similarly, they don’t want to believe that America could possibly face challenges as serious as those the Obama administration is grappling with. And so, for them, America isn’t in trouble at all, except from those they see as trying to change it.

I believe the opponent these people are fighting is not Democratic change. It’s change itself.

As Manhattan Project participant Stanislaw Ulam and others have noted, the modern world is not just changing faster than it ever has before; the rate of that change is constantly increasing. It’s as if we’re riding in a runaway train that’s accelerating at an ever higher rate — from 50 to 100 in one moment, 100 to 200 in the next.

It’s a terrifying experience. And what do terrified people do? They cover their eyes.

We’re not going to get anywhere with such people by telling them they’re ignorant or dishonest. We have to find a way to acknowledge their fear, and see if we can help them take at least a peek at the real world. It is a scary place, and we’re going to need their help, too, in coping with it.

*The Libertarian, Mary Larkin, was citing the “Democratic Socialists of America” list that’s being circulated in the right wing blogosphere — though it likely originated with a corporate lobbyist, as so many of these things do. It actually lists not socialists but members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

The Meg Whitman Presidency

by

Written with Zach Friend for the Huffington Post. It would be easy for someone to think, as they are inundated with TV and radio ads, yard signs and precinct walkers, that Meg Whitman is actually running for California’s governorship. Such a quaint idea. But $120 million of self-financed glory really portends something more: an investment in 2012.

After all, let’s take a look at Meg’s actions over the last few years. In 2008 she acted as an economic adviser to Mit Romney’s campaign and later as co-chair of John McCain’s presidential campaign. Whitman spent recent days campaigning with Rudy Giuliani, who spoke of her ability to slash government spending and lower taxes (all traditional GOP national talking points). These actions represent a significant fraction of her total political experience. Which are germane to running California? That’s right, none.

Over the last few months Whitman has averaged nearly $1 million a day in spending, for a total approaching $140 million. Most of that, more than $90 million, has been spent on TV and radio advertisements attempting to build the Meg Brand. Polls show her down anywhere from 2-7 points.

What exactly would a Whitman presidency look like? That’s hard to tell. According to the Sacramento Bee, she registered to vote less than ten years ago and first registered as a Republican in 2007. This means she was eligible to vote for 28 years but didn’t. But you probably figured you could visit her website to glean some insight into her vision for California (after all, she IS running for governor of California, right?). So here it is, taken directly from her policy pages:

Meg Whitman is running for governor to help write the next chapter in our state’s great history. She does not accept the fate the doomsayers want to lay at our doorstep. Meg understands the magnitude of the changes that are required to rebuild California. None of this will be easy, but nothing important and worth doing ever is.

That is verbatim. If you’re like us, you have no idea what it means. The platitudes continue on her policy pages: “improving the efficiency and effectiveness of government,” “cut spending” and “institute a strict spending cap.” No details on how, of course. All the while she attacks Jerry Brown for having something she doesn’t; a voting record.

Whitman’s political record is so thin that it’s hard to know what motivates her. But all by itself, the gargantuan scale of her spending is powerfully suggestive. If nothing else, she is a businesswoman. As an investment, $140 million on one roll of the dice for the governorship makes no sense. But if the real goal is the presidency? Then we’re just talking about a down payment. Win or lose in 2010, her massive outlay builds a national profile for 2012.

Maybe Meg Whitman can’t beat Jerry Brown, even by outspending him 10 to 1. But she may justifiably be more confident about beating the lackluster field vying for the GOP’s next shot at the White House.