So liberals don't get credit for civil rights now? Or are you arguing that that didn't contribute to public welfare?

I will never understand why anyone allows this (Democrat or Republican) and why it hasn't been fixed. Where is the political upside to being pro-torture? Who could possibly benefit from this? I guess I shouldn't expect people to have any shame, but this is disgusting. Is it even possible to elect some people who will enforce some accountability on this?

I can pretty much assure you that's not true.

I think insanity is a separate issue. What Will is talking about is the tendency of all politicians to turn into Carcetti (if you've seen the Wire, and if you haven't, why are you wasting your time here? Go!).

I touched on this in comments at the Fly Bottle, but I think it's a mistake to limit this analysis to top politicians; top corporate execs and financiers are probably prone to similar issues (who keeps working after the first $50 million?). Even if politicians are on average worse people than we'd find in the general populace, it's not necessarily an argument for libertarianism.

On the other hand, it might be a case for random selection of Congresspeople. Something like jury duty, but for a longer period of time--you'd be notified a year in advance, so you could start studying up, then serve a year or two in Washington, then go home. Not sure this would be a good idea, but worth thinking about anyway.

"a more banal explanation is that societies with few immigrants are generally bad (at least at first) at immigrant assimilation"

This strikes me as very true, and one reason that Republican efforts to reach out to minority communities have largely fallen flat.

Regarding our discussion a while back, I'd say this quote from Graham is pretty telling: "Republicans will give in to the idea that every American should have coverage, and it should be mandated. There's resistance to that because it runs counter to some of the doctrine."

"at least in this country the middle class has more of a chance to be heard than just about anyplace else"

Really? Our distribution of wealth is the most unequal in the first world, and our intergenerational mobility is low as well (PDF).

Related to Michael Drew's last points, I'd urge people to check out David Frum on what comes next--it's well worth reading, especially if you think that Republicans will come back with Wyden-Benett or a similar counteroffer.

Poorly worded on my part, perhaps, but the point stands: if this effort fails, we can’t just change the bill and try again. It will be taken as a political defeat for Obama, nervous Senators certainly won't be willing to stick their necks out even more, and the whole effort will go down in flames. It's simply misguided to think that Wyden-Bennett is still on the table. And it's just as misguided to imagine that, if Republicans pick up seats or take over Congress, that they'll come back and be willing to support something like Wyden-Bennett.

E.D.--I think you're displaying an incredible amount of political naivete. Do you think that if HR 3200 goes down, then congressional Democrats and Republicans will get together and draft a better bill? Of course not. If this effort fails, we can't just change the bill and try again, and we certainly won't get any Republicans on board for the effort. This is a post that would have been helpful in 2007, but if you want to pass anything at all, it's not helpful now. On the other hand, if you want to obstruct the one shot at reform that actually exists, it's very helpful.

I'm certainly not accusing you of bad faith; but I am trying to explain why this is so frustrating. Even if it's not your intent, you're hindering the efforts of any health care reform whatsoever, and helping those who support the current system.

I think it's wrong to accuse Mark of bad faith here. Health care is an extremely complicated topic, and I don't think you can accurately capture "true" public opinion on something like that (indeed, I would dispute that that concept has any meaning, given the low level of political knowledge of the general public).

Plus, you're going to have to account for inconsistencies in the polls if you choose to go this route. If people are so enamored of single payer, for example, what explains their high levels of satisfaction with their current coverage? It's simply naive to assume that single payer would be just as easy to pass as the current plan.

As for your question about Medicare expansion--I believe "Medicare for All" would be logistically equivalent to a single payer (or so indicates this old Ezra Klein post). We'd love it if we could get it, but no way does that pass the Senate (probably not even the House). No way would it be "more palatable to conservatives", at least not the kind who actually get elected.

I think you're right that what needs to be done is intra-coalitional. A good analogy might be the intra-left fight over single payer health care. It took a lot of argument and discussion amongst lefties to get people to accept that a pure single-payer plan wasn't a viable option (in fact, you'll still occasionally see splits over this, as in the highly public fight waged by the California Nurses Association). It took years to get everyone on the same page as to what the bare minimum we'd be willing to accept was. But now, the groundwork has been laid, and basically the entire progressive movement can work on pushing what they see as a politically viable yet acceptable bill.

Similarly, conservatives are going to have to figure out a compromise between their movement and reality, both in the form of physical/fiscal reality (global warming, health care) and public opinion. It'll probably have to include some form of cost controls for health care (because our fiscal structure goes *crunch* if it doesn't); it'll also have to include Social Security, although there are changes that could be made within that structure like means testing, raising the retirement age etc. But this process will have to take place before it's possible for conservative government to really work.

Crap...I have nothing to say except bravo. This was really well-put.

1. It's actually important that it happen now--before the Copenhagen talks, he'd like to have something in hand to show Europe, China, India et al.

2. Keep in mind the Bush presidency, Reagan, etc presidencies--second terms are a lousy time to get anything done. Bush crashed and burned almost immediately; Reagan got tax reform, but only by making it a truly bipartisan process. What do you think are the odds that the GOP would participate in a 1986-tax-reform style process on climate change?

Neil Gaiman's Sandman series would seem to tie in quite nicely with you earlier post about magic in fantasy, and they're just excellently written. It's a graphic novel series, so not in keeping with the rest of the list, but terrific fantasy just the same.

Jon--seriously? You're claiming that stimulus checks for the middle class are a sop to the wealthy? "These four [conservative senators] also voted against the Chamber’s position by opposing President George W. Bush’s February 2008 stimulus bill that sent checks to taxpayers. The “rebates” were one-time tax credits that excluded higher-income earners but included some people with no income tax liability."

Semi-unrelated note--Freddie, you should read Voting with Dollars--it's a very smart look at a whole new approach to campaign finance. Mark Schmitt at the American Prospect writes about some similar ideas as well, he's always worth checking out.

I suppose I would agree with his arguments, but I don't get all the way to his conclusion. Is there always something better you could be doing? With maybe a few exceptions (The Wire) I would say yes. But frankly, I'm not mentally equipped to be healthy and engaged all the time. As long as its done in moderation, I would say there's room in a healthy life for a little time-killing--in that way, TV is like any other drug. Getting drunk every day is bad news, and so is watching TV every day, but as occasional indulgences go there are worse things.

John Smith--regarding your point about compliments, I bet that if you said that a lot of people would laugh uncomfortably and change the subject though.

On the subject of innovation, Steven Johnson has a good post up about potential experiments in local news gathering. And I'm at least somewhat inclined to agree with his more optimistic take. I can't comment nationally, but I follow local news in Washington DC pretty closely, and between DCist, Prince of Petworth, a bunch of transit blogs like Greater Greater Washington, and so on, most of the functionality of the WaPo's metro section can be duplicated.

I think we're sort of talking past each other by this point...I'm going to give our illustrious hosts a chance to weigh in before I get back into this (although I will quibble with your choice of the word "manifestly". Give us a while ;)

Danby--I would say that it's your view of tribalism that's not in touch with reality. As a resident of DC, I'm closer culturally and physically to Montreal than I am to Utah. Simply put, your vision of an America that is a fractalized set of interlocking communities does not work unless everyone subscribes (or at least the vast majority). Since many don't, it makes more sense to treat people as individuals, no?

Danby--if you want to sell something and I want to buy it, and the government stops the transaction for no reason besides the fact that one of us happens to live in a different country, how is that not an act of aggression? There may be good reasons to limit trade (for example, a tariff on a country that still practiced slavery would be more than justified) but assuming there's no egregious reason to prevent the transaction, why should we?

We're coming from inherently different positions here--I believe (in very broad terms, and speaking idealistically) that all men are created equal, American, Indian or French, and that govt. policy should treat them as such. You appear to disagree--that I as an American have every right to trade with other Americans, but not with Japanese people (or at least, I'm not entitled to sell to a Japanese person on equal footing with another Japanese person). That is, you think that if the Japanese government stops me from selling to their citizens, for no other reason than my nationality, I have suffered no unjustified harm. I just don't understand why you think that.