OurFuture.org Blogs: David Sirota

NAFTA Critic Selected for U.S. Trade Representative

David Sirota — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 22:51:00 -0500

Representative Xavier Becerra, a California Democrat who once declared U.S. trade policy was “broken completely,” has been offered the job of President- elect Barack Obama’s top trade official, two Democrats close to the transition office said.

Becerra, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees trade policy, said in a 2005 interview that he regretted voting for Nafta in 1993, and cited the problems with the trade accord as a reason he helped lead the opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement that year.

He also voted against a free-trade agreement with Oman, using the example of the record U.S. trade deficit with China as a reason to oppose it.

Beccera hasn't accepted yet, but if he does, my initial reaction is that this is a solid choice. No, it's not perfect - Beccera voted for the landmark China PNTR deal in 2000 and for the Peru Free Trade Agreement. But perfect shouldn't be the enemy of the damn good.

Getting a U.S. Trade Representative who is on record against the NAFTA trade model and with votes against CAFTA and Oman is a huge change from both the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. And it's not just a good pick because it's a change from really bad Trade Representatives, the selection itself is good - and way, way, way better than what it could have been. The selection suggests Obama is serious about reforming our trade policies, and it should be applauded.

Tax Cuts or Spending: What's the Best Way to Rescue an Economy?

David Sirota — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:02:30 -0500

It's hard to believe that all conservatives have to offer right now is the Bush tax-cut agenda, but indeed - that's really all they have. Watch this MSNBC clip of Steve Forbes, one of the right's leading economic thinkers:

Forbes is given a hanging curveball to bash out of the park, and he ends up striking out on the claim that the way to fix the economy is to slash corporate tax rates. His rationale? The ol' myth about America having the second highest corporate tax rates in the world.

This sounds familiar, right? It should - it's been the right's talking point since I first wrote Hostile Takeover and likely long before that. In fact, only a few months ago, I got into a heated argument on Fox News about the issue, finally being drowned out by music as I kept reminding viewers that America has the second lowest effective corporate tax rate in the world.

But as Forbes shows, the myth persists. Here's the real facts, as excerpted from a previous post I did on the issue:

It sounds like a credible storyline, especially considering that officially, our corporate tax rate is somewhere between 35 and 39 percent. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

To know how high - or low - the effective tax rate is, you have to go beneath the top-line rate and account for all the loopholes, subsidies and write-offs - and the way to do that is by looking at corporate tax revenues as a percentage of a country's GDP. That way, you know how much corporations are actually paying as a share of your overall economy - in other words, you know the real corporate tax rate, not the fake one advertised by top-line numbers. And when you look at America's tax structure through this lens, you see that even the Bush Treasury Department admits we have the second lowest effective corporate tax rate in the industrialized world (see page 42 of this report).

Indeed, this explains the dissonance between Republican claims of "highest corporate income tax rate in the world" and the recent Government Accountability report showing that most corporations pay no corporate income taxes at all. The latter is the truth - most corporations don't pay any taxes because of loopholes, writeoffs and subsidies that allow them to effectively reduce that 35 percent corporate tax rate to zero. In fact, many profitable corporations actually collect tax rebates.

OK, let's say you accept the reality that Forbes is misleading people with his specific claims about the corporate tax rate - but nonetheless think his overall argument about tax cuts is right: namely, that cutting taxes is the best way to stimulate an economy. Why do you think that?

My guess is because you've heard it for so long from people like Steve Forbes that it has become an underlying assumption in the American psyche. After all, it can't be because of concrete facts. As I reminded Grover Norquist on CNBC last week, Bill Clinton raised taxes on the wealthy as the nation was struggling with a stagnating economy in 1993, and the economy subsequently boomed. George W. Bush repeatedly cut taxes on the wealthy over the last 8 years, and this has been one of the worst economic eras in modern history. I'm not saying tax policy is the single causative factor - but I am saying we know better ways to stimulate an economy than cutting taxes.

As CAF's Isaiah Poole has reported, financial experts acknowledge that public infrastructure spending provides a much bigger boost to an economy than tax cuts. The Economic Policy Institute has convincingly argued that the more spending on programs that help those who need it most, the more boost to the macro economy. That makes perfect sense - if the goal is to stimulate an economy, what better way than to pump money into the programs that will spend it the fastest and on priorities that have a dual public benefit?

Sure, both Forbes' ideas and public spending ideas aren't new. Conservatives have long been arguing that tax cuts are the panacea, and have now resurrected their ludicrous claim that public spending during the New Deal exacerbated - rather than mitigated - the Great Depression. Meanwhile, progressives have long been arguing that spending on public priorities is a better path to long-term economic growth. And while I know conservatives believe facts have a progressive bias, it is a truism that only one of us - progressives - actually has history and facts on our side.

The Real Rivalry In the Team: The Cabinet vs. The Campaign Promises

David Sirota — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 10:40:58 -0500

Just as an add-on to my column this week, I wanted to add two more macro thoughts about Obama's appointments, and progressive unrest about those appointments.

First, I think there's a psychological aspect to what bothers progressives about Obama's refusal to appoint movement progressives to key positions. The public opinion data overwhelmingly confirms that Obama won with a clear progressive mandate - to argue otherwise against cut-and-dry numbers is to mimic an ostrich shoving its head in the sand, or to mimic the Braindead Megaphone's insistence that this is a "center-right nation." Additionally, nobody argues that his victory wasn't the product of huge progressive grassroots support. So in light of that, there's a perception that he's delivering the spoils of that victory to those who embody what the election rejected.

In that sense, there's a Rodney Dangerfield harrumph - we progressives get no respect. That's understandable, but we're going to have to keep our eye on the policy, understanding that personnel impacts policy, but isn't policy itself. And the policy is ultimately what defines true respect (and disrespect).

Second, the meaningless "pragmatic Team of Rivals" nonsense - and it truly is media-created nonsense - is clearly being used as a rationale to pack the incoming administration with Establishment figures. Indeed, the "rivalry" isn't between the "team" of appointees (most of them come from the same team - ie. the center-right team of permanent Washington). The "rivalry" is between the positions/ideology of the appointees and the positions/ideology Obama explicitly campaigned on.

For instance, the "rivalry" isn't between Bob Rubin proteges Larry Summers and Tim Geithner on economic policy - it is between Summers and Geithner the ideological deregulators and Obama's promises to better regulate Wall Street. Likewise, the "rivalry" isn't between Hillary Clinton and the other "hawks" on the foreign policy team, it is between Clinton who bashed Obama's proposals for more diplomacy with enemies and Obama's promises to diplomatically reach out to enemy nations.

The problem could be something of a cloistering effect. George W. Bush was criticized for putting yes men around him - people who didn't challenge his thinking. By contrast, Obama is being praised for assembling a "Team of Rivals" that will challenge his thinking and, by extension, his campaign promises (it's logical, after all, to believe his campaign promises are an extension of his thinking). But if that team is comprised mostly of the same kinds of voices from the same Establishment perspective, it will likely mean constant if subtle pressure on the President to water down his policies. In short, he won't be surrounded by yes men - he'll be surrounded by no men.

It's certainly possible that Obama will not be affected at all by the voices he puts around him, and that - as I wrote earlier - he is banking on getting center-right Establishment figures to carry center-left Establishment-challenging policy. We should withhold final judgment until we see the policies come January 2009 and beyond. We don't know that this conservatives-carrying-progressive-legislation strategy is his goal, but we can certainly hope, and we can additionally hope that he didn't appoint center-right Establishment figures to carry a center-right Establishment agenda.

That said, I think those who say that the latter isn't possible and that the only rationale thing to do is simply trust Obama's "buck stops here" promise yesterday are being willfully stupid and dishonest - both to themselves and to those they are arguing with. They claim progressives are being "purists" for the progressive agenda - as if they aren't being pro-Obama purists (ie. purists who refuse to question the Dear Leader). And really, what's better - supposed "purists" whose purity is about a set of policies, or purists whose purity is about who can most loyally worship an individual?

The truth is, we all want Obama to do well - but there's nothing disloyal, silly or uniformed about looking at his appointments and asking why many of them seem to individually represent positions and ideologies at odds with the positions and ideologies he campaigned on. And despite the insistence by some that we should "just wait until Obama's in office" and shut up and "give Obama a chance," there's nothing disloyal, silly or uninformed about speaking out about those questions and concerns now - because he is already exercising power when making these appointments, and as Frederick Douglass said, "power concedes nothing without demand."

As a great philosopher asked, "If not now, when?" And to that I'll add, if not us now, then someone else now. By that I mean, if there isn't progressive pressure now, then there will be pressure from somewhere else.

In fact, there already is - it's no accident that the conservative noise machine from Karl Rove on down is praising Obama's appointments, and effectively creating that rightward pull. If there isn't similar progressive pressure now, don't be surprised if the debate - and thus the policy - starts slowly creeping right. As Chris Bowers notes, even Bill Clinton understood the value of progressive pressure - and noted that without such pressure he was forced to the right. That means progressive pressure benefits Obama by helping him play off it and define the progressive center his campaign promises embody.

Our Dear Leader

David Sirota — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 15:38:49 -0500

Lots of folks are expressing concern over Barack Obama's appointments, and in my new newspaper column I offer three separate thoughts on the worries: 1) Don't worry so much, 2) Worry a little bit and make your worries heard and 3) What did you expect?

This last point is arguably the most important. Because of the structure of the movement Obama built for himself he has more top-down power than any previous president. Whether you think that's good news or bad news, it is reality. We have elected a Dear Leader, and have ceded a lot of power to our Dear Leader. We have to simultaneously hope he makes good decisions, and figure out how to organize effectively in case he doesn't.

Read the whole column here.

Big Trouble In Little America

David Sirota — Sun, 30 Nov 2008 22:06:01 -0500

I watched one of the two Best Worst Movies in film history this weekend - Big Trouble in Little China (the other Best Worst Movie is Army of Darkness). Whether brought on by the natural high of a leftover-filled stomach, or the artificial high of Thanksgiving night Maker's Mark, I had an epiphany that this movie is a highly accurate - if artistically absurd - portrayal of a deeply important aspect of how America sees itself in the world.

The main character, Jack Burton (Kurt Russell), is obviously cast as America. Indeed, director John Carpenter pretty overtly wants him to be something of a Western cowboy (for instance, though a truck driver, Burton carries his belongings in a saddle bag). As the Toronto Star praised Russell in its review, "He does a great John Wayne imitation." Meanwhile, David Lo Pan and his gang are the Rest of the World, and more specifically, the Non-Aligned Countries, otherwise known as the Axis of Evil.

The plot casts these Foreigners as having created a terrorist cell in San Francisco's Chinatown. In fact, every Chinese person in the movie - good guy or bad guy - is made to seem like their first and foremost loyalty is not to the United States, but to China ("China is here, Mr Burton!") - a key fear propagated by American pop culture, from the McCarthy witchhunts for communist infiltrators to George W. Bush's domestic "war on terror." And Burton's reaction to their idiosyncracies and local cultures is the stunned/disgusted "no, god, please what is that?"

So how does Burton/America deal with Lo Pan/Foreign Terrorists? He has no plan at all, other than to head to their headquarters and bust in guns blazing. This is not an accident or something looked down on - it's how he rolls and he's proud of it, as evidenced by his repeated refrain that he doesn't need to plan because "it's all in the reflexes."

Everytime he says this, we're supposed to laugh and cheer with him, because this is how we roll.

We don't plan when dealing with foreigners who have different customs and cultures and who threaten our interests - we don't need to plan because planning is for wimps. We're fellow truck-driver cowboys with daggers in pocket of the boots we're wearing over our acid wash jeans - and dammit, "it's all in the reflexes."

While Burton stumbles a lot and makes an idiot out of himself, his lack of planning ultimately works. He defeats the evil foreigners, saves the day and gets the girl (who he's too cool to keep around). The moral of the story is that while America might make some blockheaded mistakes, they're honest ones and because we're the "good guys" we'll end up winning the day. There may be "big trouble" but it's manageable because compared to American power, everything is little (in the movie's case what's little is China, but it could be anything - Iraq, Al Qaeda, etc.).

Big Trouble in Little China debuted in 1986 - arguably the peak of American world supremacy. The Soviet Union was on its heels about to collapse and there were no other superpowers, or emerging superpowers. So, in that sense, the movie was a vaguely accurate metaphorical depiction of the United States at the moment. We could kick some ass without really having to think about it.

That said, the tongue-in-cheek flavor of the film suggests Carpenter is using the Burton character to deliberately ridicule American hubris (and let's not forget the very end of the movie just before the credits roll: the crazy-eyed demon about to get his final revenge on Burton could be the world taking revenge on that hubris). So, in that sense, the movie was actually a prescient warning - one that's more relevant today than when it first came out. China and India are both on the ascent economically and militarily, and the global power game has gone stateless and transnational. So while we still like to see ourselves as the chest-puffed swashbuckling Jack Burton from the film's poster, that's just not what we are - or can be - anymore. Our Jack Burton-ism is no longer the rip-roaring hee-hawin' adventures through the Grenadas and Panamas of the world - we're knee-deep in battles with much bigger and better-prepared enemies.

And so the the question is whether we - and by extension, our our pop culture - can acknowledge that reality?

It seems to me we refused to accept that when we re-elected George W. Bush in 2004 - a President Jack Burton if there ever was one. Remember, it was Bush who looked at terrorists and said "bring it on," and it was Jack Burton who bragged that he " looks that big ol' storm right square in the eye and says, 'Give me your best shot, pal. I can take it.'"

But it also seems to me that perhaps we are beginning the process of accepting reality when we elected Barack Obama, largely because Obama articulated a vision of America being far more humble and controlled on the world stage.

Sure, reflexes (ie. how we react in a short-term crisis) are still going to be important. But with our global challenges becoming far more long-term and structural in nature, it's not going to be "all in the reflexes" nor can we afford to just waltz into delicate situations against well-prepared enemies without any other plan than kickin' some ass.

Because of population growth trends, an Asian industrial revolution, and the decline of our empire-level power, the featured film of the day will increasingly be Big Trouble in Little America. We're up to dealing with that trouble, but only if we retire Jack Burton to the Pork Chop Express for good.

GIFT SHOP ADDENDUM: As something of a gift-shop addendum to this post, I wanted to note that you can go pick up all the Big Trouble in Little China paraphernalia that you may want from the Wing Kong Exchange, a website named after the major venue in the movie.

The Pitfalls and Possibilities of Orwellian "Pragmatism"

David Sirota — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 09:50:18 -0500

pragmatic

Definition: of or pertaining to a practical point of view or practical considerations.

If you've been reading the newspaper or watching television recently, you probably noticed the sudden ubiquity of the word "pragmatic." President-elect Obama has repeatedly used the term to describe his new administration, citing it in juxtaposition to "ideology." The media has followed his lead with lines like the one we see in today's Politico, which says Obama's new economic adviser Christina Romer "shares much of Summer's centrist, pragmatic perspective on economic issues."

Glenn Greenwald has written extensively on the Orwellian nature of the term "pragmatic" (here and here) noting that the term - and others like it ("competent," etc.) - were used to describe Dick Cheney when he entered the vice presidency. I just want to add one thing - politicians and the chattering class may be portraying "pragmatism" as substitute for ideology, but any honest look indicates that "pragmatism" is mostly being used in the political debate as a euphemism for conservative ideology - and not some new and reformed conservative ideology, but the same stultified and rigid one that was just resoundingly rejected by the electorate.

Lawrence Summers, for instance, is a rigidly ideological figure. He championed the deregulatory schemes that brought us to this economic emergency - schemes that were the definition of "ideological" in that they weren't based on empirical evidence, but on prospective theories about what they would and would not do. Same thing with Tim Geithner and the bailout. Same thing, in fact, with Iraq War hawks who are going to fill Obama's administration.

Somehow, the definition of "pragmatism" or "competence" means only having been part of the last three decades of impractically conservative government, as if that "experience" (another Orwellian term) getting us to this point is desirable in a new administration; as if the "inexperience" of the people who were right in their criticism and pragmatic in their alternate policy proposals are undesirably impractical; as if we should, say, trust the oil companies that created global warming - and not the environmental advocacy groups that had been sounding the alarm - to now lead the fight to stop global warming.

Now let me say, the fact that Summers, Geithner and others are ideological actors is fine at a certain level.

I'm not uncomfortable with ideology - and clearly, neither is Barack Obama judging both by his ideologically progressive platform, and by his ideologically conservative appointments.

What I am uncomfortable with is the use of the term "pragmatism" as a name for conservative ideology, because when it is used that way, it implicitly says that non-conservative ideology is not pragmatic. If pragmatism means "pertaining to a practical point of view," then when you label one thing like conservative free-market fundamentalism as "pragmatic" there is the implicit suggestion that the opposite of that ideology - like, say, progressivism - is not "a practical point of view."

That's the whole goal, of course. Whether it's the constant perversion of the term "centrism" or the Orwellian use of the word "pragmatism," the objective from the media and political Establishment is to marginalize progressivism in this, a supposed "center-right" nation. And what better way to do that than bill discredited free-market fundamentalism as undebateably practical, and anything else as impractical, pie-in-the-sky idiocy?

What's particularly annoying - though not surprising - about this right now is that if there was ever a time for a paradigm shift, it is now. We're facing a potential depression that is a direct result of conservative's ideological and decidedly un-pragmatic policies. Our own history during the Great Depression indicates that the pragmatic way to deal with such a massive crisis is through some good old fashioned ideological progressivism.

Obama, I think, knows this, and is doing something of a dance - one that doesn't seek to challenge or change the Orwellian shenanigans, but to manipulate them for his own - and likely progressive - ends. It could be really brilliant (as long as what he's doing isn't the opposite - an attempt to sell policies crafted by conservatives with a marketing team made up of progressives - I don't think it is, but we can't be totally sure just yet).

As I told Rachel Maddow this week, his initial moves suggest a president who hired ideological free-market conservatives, and who will order them to push ideologically progressive policies - all under the mantra of "pragmatism." And doing that is certainly very pragmatic. Assessing the Washington landscape and the economic situation, Obama - in a very pragmatic way - seems to have determined that the practical thing to do is pass progressive legislation, and that the most practical way to do that is to have that legislation carried by free-marketeers whose conservatism gets them painted by pundits as "pragmatists."

Indeed, if Obama can and does do that, he would be both the most pragmatic and progressive president in contemporary history - proving once and for all that "pragmatism" is no substitute for progressive ideology, but in these tough times, a synonym for it.

Discussing Obama's Economic Team on the Rachel Maddow Show

David Sirota — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:10:25 -0500

I appeared on Rachel Maddow's MSNBC show at the top of the hour last night to discuss President Bush's abdication of economic responsibility in his final months in office, as well as what the incoming Obama team faces now and when it assumes office. You can watch it here:

Emails from Wingnuttia

David Sirota — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:17:36 -0500

Thought I would share this email from Wingnuttia that I received after debating Grover Norquist today on CNBC. I get lots of hate mail like this, and it is instructive:

Subject: CNBC Performance

David- I had never heard of you until today when I saw you on CNBC. I initially thought it was a joke after hearing some of your absurd comments about basic economics, but it became painfully clear that you were actually trying to be serious.

It was then that I started researching who you are and what was your background. I learned that you are nothing more than a democrat operative. First and foremost you have a journalism and political background vs. an economic one. Press Secretary for Bernie Sanders pretty much says it all. All this combined to make your accusation of Grover Norquist being political more than ironic.

I have a group of 10-12 peers that own businesses and have formal finance backgrounds. For comic relief, we e-mail clips such as yours today on CNBC to each other. I have to tell you that your performance today drew the greatest amount of laughter in several months. Your lack of comprehension of the marginal tax rate and our economic history during the 20th century was priceless.

Going forward, I would strongly encourage you to stay away from venues such as CNBC. The audience is comprised largely of economic producers as opposed to uninformed populists. I can't imagine that exposing yourself to this sector of viewer is productive for your career. I would strongly encourage you to stick with The Huffington Post, CNN and The Colbert Report.

Best of luck.

I say this note is instructive because, as you see, there's not a single shred of fact in here. Indeed, there's not even a hint at an attempt to make a substantive argument. It's just, "I'm a rich guy and me and my rich friends laughed at you because we think you are stupid."

That's really the motto of Wingnuttia these days - and then somehow, these people wonder why the American public has thrown conservatives out of office.

The Tax History Conservatives Want Us to Forget

David Sirota — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 13:53:19 -0500

Grover Norquist is regularly billed as one of the leading intellectual lights of the conservative movement - and I think you will agree that the arguments he made in a debate with me over taxes this morning on CNBC highlight not merely the shocking intellectual bankruptcy of the movement he leads, but just how out of touch Republicans in Washington really are.

The debate revolved around President-elect Obama's potential plans to put off raising taxes on the very wealthy. Norquist begins the debate with the claim - I kid you not - that "the economy is in the present state because when the Democrats took the House and Senate in 2006 you knew those tax increases were going to come in 2010." He insisted that, "The stock market began to collapse as soon as you recognize that those old tax rates were coming back." Yes, because under "those old tax rates" - ie. Clinton-era tax rates - the economy was so much worse than it is today.

As you'll see, the CNBC reporters start laughing at Norquist, having trouble taking him seriously. And I must say, I really wasn't sure he was being serious - but, of course, he was. I went on to make the point that I've often made in the past - the point that conservatives simply want everyone to forget: Namely, that President Clinton faced down a recession in 1993 by raising taxes on the wealthy in order to finance an economic stimulus package, and the economy subsequently boomed.

That simple, undeniable bit of history undermines the entire structure of conservatives claim that raising taxes on the super-rich will hurt the economy. And as you'll see from Norquist's response, they simply cannot deal with that truth. Indeed, Norquist actually goes all the way back to the 1920s as his example that raising taxes on the wealthy impedes economic growth - somehow ignoring the history from 15 years ago. He then goes on to claim with a straight face that Franklin Roosevelt created the Great Depression (this, along with the "center-right nation" propaganda, seems to be the right's new talking point).

The question now is whether the Obama administration buys into Norquist's fact-free nonsense, or whether it musters the same courage President Clinton mustered in prudently raising taxes on the super-rich to responsibly finance an economic stimulus package. Sure, temporary deficits are acceptable right now - there's no arguing that. But doing what's necessary to minimize those deficits is also important.

In terms of policy, if, as Congressional Quarterly reports, Obama wants to enforce budget discipline on a necessarily large economic stimulus package, it will require generating additional revenue from the wealthy. In terms of raw politics, if Clinton's 43 percent of the vote gave him enough political capital to come into office during an economic downturn and do that, I'd say Obama and his 53 percent gives him enough political capital to do the same today. And I would argue that if Obama backs off his promise to raise taxes on the wealthy, he will effectively validate the false conservative frame that claims tax increases on the wealthy endangers an economy.

While I certainly agree with the CNBC reporter that the 2008 is different than the 1990s, it isn't different when it comes to taxes - we have very recent history that proves raising taxes on the wealthy in order to raise revenues for economic stimulus, if done prudently, helps an economy recover. That is the argument that nobody during this debate was able to undermine - and it is the argument conservatives fear most, because they know it is accurate.

Ghettoization & The Difference Between Politics & Policy

David Sirota — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:30:54 -0500

“This is the violin model: Hold power with the left hand, and play the music with your right,” David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton official who wrote a history of the National Security Council, said on Friday, as news of Mrs. Clinton’s and Mr. Geithner’s appointments leaked.

This quote, from the New York Times story asserting that Barack Obama will govern from the center-right, highlights a very important dynamic in politics: the tendency of politicians to use the argot of progressivism in their public presentations (to "hold power with the left hand") - all while wielding conservative policy ("playing the music with your right").

There's nothing surprising about this - the reason endangered politicians of both parties start airing populist progressive themes around election time is because they know those themes are popular among rank-and-file voters (thus the definition of "populism") - they know, in other words, that this is a decidedly center-left country, and when they have to answer to that country come election day, they go left. But once these politicians get into office and are far away from all of us, the unwashed masses, the pressures of money and media - ie. the Establishment - unleashes incredible pressure for them to actually write the details of policy in a way that preserves a conservative status quo.

Enter the Obama administration.

While there's not enough evidence to declare a full-on "trend" in the incoming Obama White House, it is notable that Obama's policy appointments (ie. Cabinet secretaries and White House policy advisers who actually craft policy) are almost all right-of-center, Establishment choices - and almost none are, as The Nation's Chris Hayes has said, movement progressives. At the same time, many Obama appointments to exclusively political positions – that is, positions that are focused on selling policy, whatever that policy may be - are terrific movement progressives, people like Mike Lux (transition outreach to progressive orgs), Ellen Moran (communications director), Phil Schiliro (congressional liason) and Patrick Gaspard (political director). In other words, the initial structure seems to resemble the principle in American politics of politicians publicly selling their policies in progressive terms, while having those policies be crafted with much more conservative ideology.

Intra-administration ideological ghettoization isn't new. The last Democratic administration engaged in its share of conservative-progressive ghettoization - but rather than making the policy/politics barrier the wall of the two ghettos, it divided the two ideologies between the cabinet offices with different jurisdictions. The cabinet offices that oversaw economic regulation and defense largely went to conservatives, and the cabinet offices with powerful grassroots progressive constituencies like Labor, EPA, I and HUD went to progressives.

The potential ghettoization in the Obama administration - and I stress again, it's only the potential - is one where the policy sculptors are center-right Establishmentarians, and where the policy marketers (ie. the political team) is comprised of people who know how to package and sell policies in the language of progressivism, and sell those policies to progressive activists, a progressive-dominated Democratic congressional caucus and a center-left public at large. Certainly, Obama may mimic the Clinton administration and give Labor, EPA, Interior and HUD to progressives as well, but the politics-policy divide nonetheless seems to be the defining progressive-conservative boundary right now.

Obviously, the division of responsibility is never totally cut and dry. As Karl Rove showed, a White House political team can have a lot of influence over policy. So we can’t draw any hard and fast conclusions about what this will mean in the Obama administration. It’s very possible that the progressive political team will have a lot of policy say.

That said, I do think it is important for progressives to understand the difference between the policy and political machinery of an administration. Ghettoizing conservatives into the policy machine (to "play the music") and progressives into the political machine (to help Obama "hold power") would not bode well for all the progressive policy promises Obama made during the campaign. After all, if the details of policy are being forged by center-right Establishment insiders, those policies are more likely (though certainly not guaranteed) to represent a fairly center-right Establishment viewpoint, no matter how well those policies are draped in the salesmanship of a progressive political machinery.

This gets to the fundamental question about Obama that nobody really knows. Does Obama believe that in order to be a successful president and right the economy, he has to fulfill the decidedly progressive policy promises he made during the campaign? Or does he believe that if he combines his own personal salesmanship talents with a strong political team that is skilled at the language of progressivism, he can sell a right-of-center Establishment agenda as huge "change?"

Nobody knows the answer to this - and those who say they do are arguing with the same ridiculed faith that George W. Bush cited when he said he knew Vladimir Putin was a good guy because he looked into the Russian autocrat's eyes. The truth is, we just don't know what Obama thinks his path should be.

That's why it is important to keep a close eye on how the new administration is being constructed. The strategies we create to enact a progressive agenda (and I assume that, and not just Democratic Party dominance, is what progressives want) will have to be calibrated for the kind of administration that is ultimately built. An administration that has right-of-center policy sculptors and left-of-center policy sellers will have to be worked with differently than, say, an administration with progressive policy sculptors and conservative policy sellers.

Again, I'm not saying the administration is built yet, or that the initial staffing decisions delineate a full-fledged trend. But we should watch closely to see if a trend does, indeed, develop.

ADDENDUM: Digby makes a very good point - if a kind of ghettoization happens inside the Obama administration putting progressives in sales jobs and center-right Establishmentarians in policy forging jobs, one of the benefits would be that it could help shift the political language. That is to say that if Obama thinks it is important to sell his policies - whatever they may be - in the argot of movement progressivism, that will indeed help push back on "center-right" propaganda machine that seeks to present everything in conservative terms.

So while I continue to optimistically hope that no matter who Obama puts in whatever positions we'll get some pretty good progressive policy, I think Digby has made an additionally good point in noting that the Obama administration's structure could additionally help shift the overall parameters of the political debate to the left (or, more precisely, to the actual, progressive center of American public opinion). And that's not a small thing.