That's How It's Done

Barney Frank is my hero of the day. I've always admired the fact that he is perfectly willing to use his superior intellect and encyclopedic knowledge of politics, process, and policy to just dismantle his opponents. He understands that sometimes politics is about listening, engaging your opponents, and compromise, and sometimes it is just about beating them. I'm a big fan of respectfully participating in civil dialogue, and I have been disappointed on countless occasions by my fellow liberals' refusal or inability to thoughtfully consider conservative or Republican arguments.

But there are limits to how long you can keep turning the other cheek when the other side insists on slapping you in the face. There is a time to disagree without being disagreeable. Conservatives doe not consider this to be one of those moments. So liberals are starting to recognize that there is a moment to be dismissive and argumentative, and this is one of those moments. There is a time to listen, and there is a time for flat-out ridicule. This is a time to be harsh, and call idiots what they are.

Obama himself is, as always, calm, cool, collected, and rational. I still think there are lots of Republicans and conservatives who are worth listening to, and who are capable of responding with intelligence and grace. But the inmates have taken over the asylum, and demagogues are framing the debate on the other side.

This is how it's done:

The Assholes and Idiots Theory Redux

For my 1,000th post, I wrote about something I like to call the "Assholes and Idiots Theory." The original post is a little long, so I thot I would provide a condensed version.

The Assholes and Idiots Theory is quite simple, and says that in every political party, movement, coalition, or sufficiently large organization, there are a certain number of assholes and idiots, and that one of the duties of the leaders of that party/movement/organization is to contain the assholes and idiots. The Assholes and Idiots Theory makes no distinction as to ideology; there are just as likely to be assholes and idiots on the left as on the right.

Assholes are people who believe that they have the right to impose their will on other people, regardless of how those people feel about it. Assholes tend to be addicted to anger; they're usually furious about something. They also tend to blur ethical or legal lines when trying to impose their will. One reason that there seems to be so much anger on the right now is that the last administration completely failed to contain either the assholes or idiots. Of course, the reason why is not hard to figure out: Bush & Cheney didn't contain the assholes or idiots in the GOP because, of course, they were both. They didn't just not contain the assholes and idiots: they appointed them.

Idiots are people who believe that they are smarter than reality, and that their ideas about how the world should work are absolutely right, whether or not there is any empirical evidence to support it, and even in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Assholes and idiots tend to oppose compromise. This does not mean that people who oppose compromise are automatically either assholes or idiots; far from it. There are often very good reasons of principle and policy to oppose compromise on specific issues. The trick for leaders is knowing when people are opposing compromise out of principle or for good reason, and when they are doing so because they are either assholes or idiots.

People who are assholes and/or idiots will almost never admit to it. Which is why containing them is so difficult, but also why it is so important.

There are several strategies leaders, particularly presidents, use for containing assholes and idiots. Reagan had great credibility as a conservative, so he could compromise without completely alienating his base. Also, despite my strong feelings at the time, he was a decent human being, and not all that stupid. Clinton mostly contained the assholes and idiots because he had some credibility as a liberal on social issues (particularly race and feminism), and because he was just a damn good politician. Clinton also made it clear from the beginning that he would be willing to criticize those on the left. This was why the "Sister Souljah" moment was so important. Not that Sister Souljah herself was either an asshole or an idiot. But by criticizing her, Clinton read the public right; he angered some liberals, but not enough to lose them when it came time for the election, but he also scored points with moderates.

The assholes and idiots seem to be out in force on the right these days, although I see it that way because I'm a good liberal. Obama's strategy for containing the assholes and idiots among his opponents seems to be to stay calm and collected in contrast. Not a bad strategy, when your opponents are yelling and screaming. The most effective, but most expensive, weapon against assholes and idiots is time: idiots are eventually exposed as deeply wrong and in conflict with reality, while assholes eventually alienate too many people to have a base of support. Obama doesn't have much time in the health care debate, but he does have another three years before the next election. Which is crucial, because there is one crucial ingredient in using time to contain assholes and idiots. It is not enough that they prove themselves wrong. You have to prove that you are right. Which means that you have to be right.

Obama, Birthers, and the Assholes and Idiots Theory

I really should stop thinking, not to mention blogging, about the birthers, but this is just so much fun! It's not like shooting fish in a barrel - it's like shooting DEAD fish in a barrel. Big fish. In a small barrel.

Andrew Sullivan had a moment of confusion and made some noise about needing to see the original birth certificate as an example of Obama's commitment to transparency, but then apparently had some coffee, and came to his senses.

Just for fun, let's review how completely idiotic this whole thing is. When a controversy - or alleged controversy - like this comes up, the people promoting the "alternative" view usually at least have some kind of evidence on their side. When there are lots of uncertain facts, as in, for example, the Kennedy assassination, that's legitimate. But here's the thing about this question of whether or not Barack Obama was born in the United States of America: there is absolutely no counter evidence. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. There is no evidence that his birth certificate is anything other than what it appears to be. There is no evidence that there is another birth certificate.

But there is also no evidence about the ancillary issues that might raise questions. That comes down to one question: is there any evidence whatsoever that his mother was anywhere other than Hawaii when he was born? Let's break it down even more:

Is there any evidence that his mother was anywhere other than Hawaii BEFORE Obama was born? No.
Is there any evidence that his mother was anywhere other than Hawaii AFTER Obama was born? No.
Is there any evidence that his father was anywhere other than Hawaii BEFORE Obama was born? No.
Is there any evidence that his father was anywhere other than Hawaii AFTER Obama was born? No.

Is there any evidence that Obama's mother and father were not married at the time that he was born? No.

Hawaii is a very isolated place. It is physically and financially difficult to go from Hawaii to the US mainland, let alone another country, let alone a country, like Kenya, on the other side of the world. Obama's mother was 18 when he was born. She presumably had very little money or income. His father was a graduate student, again, presumably not well off.

Is there any evidence that either his mother or father had either the means or the inclination to be somewhere other than Hawaii when Obama was born? No.

Obama's mother would have needed a passport to leave the country. Is there any evidence, in the form of a passport, that indicates that she did so? No. Any plane tickets? No. Pictures of them on vacation in Kenya? No.

One last point on the evidence front: If Obama were not a natural born citizen of the US, he obviously is one now. So at some point he would have had to apply to be a citizen of this country. Is there any evidence that either he or his mother or anyone else ever did so? No.

What's really fun is watching the stalwarts of the conservative moment finally coming to terms with this insanity. TPM has a rundown of some of the people who normally go all-out attacking Obama - Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter - playing their own desperate version of whack-a-mole with these people.

This is a great example of the Assholes and Idiots Theory. One corollary of the A & I Theory is that assholes and idiots can only be contained by those within their party/movement/organization. Robert Gibbs and every liberal blog under the sun can call this nonsense what it is, it won't make one iota of difference. But when Ann Coulter, who is making a living just being a blonde conservative dominatrix, slams the birthers, they have to pay attention. O'Reilly and Coulter agree - irony alert - with liberals on one point: this is bad for conservatism. It's a distraction from, you know, policy discussions, and it makes the GOP look like it is beholden to its lunatic fringe. Clinton contained the assholes and idiots with his Sister Souljah moment (not that she was either). He made it clear that he would stand up to the angry left. O'Reilly and Coulter can whack a few moles, but to really nip this in the bud, someone with something really at stake - i.e. an elected official - is going to have to stand up to them. That will be interesting. And even more fun.

The Assholes and Idiots Theory

First, a personal of achievement: this is my 1,000th post. Something of a milestone. Of course, that's about how many posts Andrew Sullivan writes in, oh, say, a month, but still, it's nice to realize I've been writing that much.

To mark the occasion, I am going to write about something that I have been thinking about for a while: the Assholes and Idiots Theory. The Assholes and Idiots Theory says that, in any sufficiently large political organization, i.e a party, movement, or coalition, there will be a certain number of assholes and idiots, and one of the key roles of the leaders of said party, movement, etc., is to contain the assholes and idiots. The A&I Theory makes no distinctions as to ideology; there are just as likely to be assholes and idiots on the left as on the right.

It's not hard to define, for the purposes of theory, "assholes" or "idiots," because everyone has met plenty of both. They're like pornography; you know them when you see them. But, as a philosophy major, I can't resist the urge to define my terms.

There are two kinds of "asshole" for the purposes of this theory. The first is someone whose political activism involves influencing the political system so as to reward members of a group that he or she belongs to with grossly disproportionate resources relative to their numbers and accomplishments. Everyone tries to influence the political system to reward their own group; assholes do so with no regard for anyone else. The second kind of asshole is someone who crosses legal or ethical boundaries in pursuit of their political agenda. Lots of people come close to ethical or legal boundaries; many people blur those lines, intentionally or not. Assholes cross lines knowing full well what they are doing. Real assholes enjoy it.

Of course, just about everyone involved in the political system is trying to influence the political system to reward their group, and just about all of those people would deny doing so in any disproportionate way. Assholes are the ones who refuse to compromise. They tend to deny that their group is in any way privileged or the recipient of generous rewards, and often claim to actually be victims rather than beneficiaries of largesse. On the right, the people who demand cutting taxes for themselves, without accepting simultaneous cuts in services for themselves, are examples of this group. On the left, there are a number of unions who could fit this bill, particularly the ones who demand absolute job security and exorbitant pensions.

An "idiot" for the purposes of this theory is someone who believes that their ideas about how the world should work should be imposed on society, without taking into account how the world actually does work. These people tend to develop grand theories with little empirical evidence. They also tend to have highly refined defense mechanisms that start working as soon as they are presented with evidence that their theories will not or do not work. They often hold positions which do not force them to come to terms with whether or not their theories actually do work. On the right, fundamentalist Christians who believe the Bible is to be taken literally are fit this mold. On the left, academic social critics who spend most of their time arguing with other academic social critics are in this group (I define an academic social critic as someone who sits alone in a room so they can write long, boring essays blaming society for the fact that they are lonely).

There are lots of people who fit in these groups who are neither assholes nor idiots. There are many fundamentalist Christians and union members who are wonderful, upstanding people. There are lobbyists for the banking industry who are very generous with their personal charitable contributions. There are animal rights activists who are great neighbors.

On the other hand, many assholes and idiots are motivated by the best of intentions. Many of them do not seem to be either assholes or idiots. There are many passionate people who are unwilling to compromise, and see their own righteousness as a virtue, while others see it as being judgmental or argumentative. There are many brilliant people who simply do not have a strong connection to reality, and are not interested in getting outside of their own heads, because they are more comfortable there than the real world.

The dangerous assholes and idiots are the ones who are professionally involved in politics and are committed to influencing the political system with little or no interest in compromise. On the contrary, they often have an interest in stoking the fires of partisan combat.

It is crucial for any movement or party for the leader and/or leaders to contain the assholes and idiots. Presidents are particularly important in this respect. Clinton and Reagan were both good at this; LBJ, Nixon, and our recent Bush were not. Bush was a great example of failure in this respect. Bush couldn't contain the assholes and idiots in his party and his movement for one specific reason: he was an asshole and an idiot. Republicans are not alone in this; Lyndon Johnson wasn't an asshole in terms of domestic policy, and he sure wasn't an idiot in that regard, but he definitely was both an asshole and an idiot in foreign policy. Nixon, of course, was just an asshole and an idiot all the way around.

It's easy for presidents to fail at fulfilling this key but unspoken executive political responsibility; success is much harder. Reagan's and Clinton's successes were based on opposite strategies. Reagan had a great deal of credibility as a conservative, so when he disappointed the assholes and idiots on the right, he was insulated from accusations of selling out or compromising. Of course, the fact that he was a really nice guy and was popular with the American people (except me and my friends) didn't hurt.

Clinton didn't have much credibility among the more partisan and liberal Democrats, but they were so thrilled to win back the White House after 12 years that they were willing to cut him some slack. Clinton also had several advantages: extraordinary charisma, a brilliant political mind, both strategically and tactically, and a voracious appetite for policy. Clinton was also blessed with a great enemy in Newt Gingrich and the Republicans in Congress. Clinton was able to contain the assholes and idiots by claiming that he was their best defense against a resurgent GOP. Also, most of the real assholes and idiots on the left had done their greatest damage in the '60's, and the Democrat party had spent the years since containing the worst of the assholes and idiots.

Presidents are only the most visible of any A & I containment strategy. Institutions as large as movements and parties develop their own strategies for containing assholes and idiots. The best - but most expensive - weapon in doing so is usually time. Assholes and idiots, left to their own devices, usually fail, somehow or other. Assholes fail by alienating moderates and others outside their own immediate coalition. Idiots fail because eventually their theories are exposed as inadequate because they don't work. Thus does accountability work in democracy.

The most visible anti-asshole and idiot containment strategy on the left was the Democratic Leadership Council. It's still around, but I have the feeling that it has mostly outlived its usefulness. Another great tactic that the left has for containing idiots in particular is tenure. Tenure at the college level keeps people who have bad ideas for how to change the world insulated and isolated, so they are rendered, in the worlds of Douglas Adams, "mostly harmless." There are lots of brilliant but misguided people with Ph.d.'s who waste huge amounts of their personal time and energy arguing with each other, instead of trying to tell the rest of us what to do. This is a side benefit of the ivory tower.

Republicans currently have a problem because they do not have a working strategy for containing their assholes and idiots. They also do not have anyone who can execute any such strategy, even if they had one. Such is the legacy of Bush.

They are also cursed with an opponent who is holding a a damn good hand when it comes to containing the assholes and idiots. Obama has everything Clinton had: he has just as much charisma as Clinton, he's just as smart as him, both politically and in terms of policy, and he has one of Clinton's most powerful weapons - Hillary - at his side. While Clinton was not an asshole at the policy level, he was one on the very domestic level. Obama does not have that problem. And Obama, of course, has built-in credibility, and a very large base, as the first African-American president.

Obama also has an even better enemy than Clinton did. Clinton was blessed and cursed with a great enemy; Gingrich was obnoxious and rude, which served him well as a guerilla political warrior, but not so well when he was Speaker of the House. But Gingrich did lead a very effective rebellion when he led it. When he and the Republicans took over the House in 1994, the Democrats were blown away - they had no idea what hit them. Clinton scrambled and managed to adapt, but the rest of his presidency was not what he thot it was going to be. Obama, on the other hand, faces a fractured, demoralized, and seriously weakened GOP. There is virtually no chance that the Republicans will control either house of Congress while Obama is president, even if he wins two terms. Demographics are moving decisively in the Democrats' favor.

Obama has four other advantages over Clinton, all personal: Obama is patient where Clinton could be impulsive; decisive, while Clinton agonized over decisions; disciplined, whereas Clinton could be sloppy. Most important, Obama has a reputation as being motivated and guided by principle, where Clinton was seem as waffling. I thot Clinton's reputation as a compromiser was somewhat undeserved; he was very committed to abortion rights, gun control, and free trade. Part of Clinton's problem was that some of the things he was committed to, like welfare reform, were not popular with the left wing of the Democratic party. Disagreeing with the assholes and idiots about basic principles makes it harder to contain them. Obama is discovering this as he compromises on investigating the use of torture by the Bush administration. On this, many people - some conservatives, notably Andrew Sullivan, as well as many liberals, including me - feel that there can and should be no compromise. But Obama has also done some things right, like banning torture and trying to close Guantanamo Bay.

Tactically, probably the best contain-the-assholes-and-idiots move by Obama early on was naming Hillary Secretary of State. Not that Hillary is either! Not that her supporters are! But putting her in such a high position healed a lot of wounds left over from the campaign very quickly and very effectively. A lot of anger dissipated instantly.

Dealing with anger is key to any good asshole containment strategy, because many assholes are addicted to it. I mean that quite literally; I think anger is addictive. Anger is like cocaine: it distorts your perception, makes you paranoid, and is addictive. Assholes often look for reasons to be angry, and very often have pushers, dealers who feed their addiction.

Idiots may also be addicted to anger, but they are also addicted to their own theories, their own sense of self-righteousness. Of course, assholes and idiots are often interchangeable; one person can easily be both, if they are dysfunctional enough. Which many are.

Ultimately, Obama's asshole-and-idiot containment strategy comes down to one thing: getting things done. Nothing dissipates anger like solving problems. Choosing Hillary as Secretary of State wasn't just a brilliant move because it mollified her supporters; it was a brilliant move because she is absurdly well-qualified. She isn't just doing a good job; she loves it.

Right now Obama's great challenge is reforming health care. Whatever bill passes through Congress will make many people unhappy. It will not be perfect; it will solve problems, but create others, which, in turn, will have to be solved. It's a huge project, with lots of potential for error. But Obama is calm, focused, in command of the details, and determined. Apart from all his other qualities, Obama is also a very, very good street fighter. He knows how to rally the troops and, more importantly, how to focus them. He knows how to get his supporters fired up, and then give them something to do. That's a great way to deal with the A/I problem - get them on your side, and focus their energy and anger on your mutual opponents.

Republicans are terrified of Obama, but the feeling is not returned; he is not afraid of them. That must drive them nuts. When in doubt, go with the guy who can laugh in the face of danger. If Bush utterly failed to contain the assholes and idiots in his party, Obama's great advantage in containing his is that he is neither.