It may be that next week the various parties will reach a deal to raise the debt ceiling. And whatever that deal is, nobody but David Brooks and David Frum and some other faux moderates and Beltway toadies will like it. The teabaggers won’t like it. Progressives won’t like it. And there will be weeping and wailing and cries to throw the bum(s) out. That much is certain.

News reports yesterday said that the President had offered cuts to Medicare and Social Security in exchange for significant revenue increases. And let’s assume this is true. This may be political theater, or it may be a genuine offer, but if it’s a genuine offer and the Republicans take it, I sincerely hope the Dems don’t. Just be sure that if the nation defaults, hang it and the consequences around the necks of the GOP.

It’s way past time to stop pretending we’re living in a normal country here, and not one taken over by lunatics.

That said, I’m less inclined to blame President Obama, or even The Crazy. I’m blaming those who allowed The Crazy to take over. That includes media, big time. I’m tired of them politely pretending that lunacy isn’t lunacy. They’re enabling craziness in the name of being nonpartisan. Well, screw that.

But the fault also lies with voters, especially progressive voters. Because they’re the ones who stayed home from the polls in 2010 and allowed the crazies to take back the House. And we (speaking figuratively; I voted) did this because so many of us were disappointed with President Obama and congressional Republicans Democrats for not being as progressive as we wanted them to be. And this is understandable.

But what is the result? It’s worse, not better.

I think it’s likely that if we had the same Congress now that we had in 2010 there would be a lot of noise about raising the debt ceiling, and many of the blue dogs would join Republicans to call for steep cuts in this or that, but the eventual deal wouldn’t have been nearly as draconian, nor would the nation have been pushed this far to the edge.

Presidents have very little power to do anything. They are only as effective as far as they can get Congress to sign off on what they want. With a Congress stacked in his favor, even a weenie like George W. Bush could look strong and push his agenda pretty far down the road. President Obama has been dealing with a Congress that resists him at every step, and this year it has been even worse. It’s even crazier than the Congress Bill Clinton had to deal with, and that was pretty crazy.

Even a president with the political skills of a Lincoln or an FDR, or a Bill Clinton, would have a hard time getting anything accomplished with this Congress, and President Obama isn’t in that league. But the solution is not to try to replace him with another Democrat — which would turn the White House over to the Republicans. The solution is to get rid of The Crazy and pack Congress with as many progressives as possible. That’s where we should focus.

My fear is that the usual nay-sayers on the Left will bellyache so much and so loudly about the evil Obama that progressive voters stay home from the polls again next year, giving The Crazy an even bigger slice of the power pie. When are we going to learn?

Reuters is reporting that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is weighing options on how to manage the nation’s money if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.

I guess it’s no secret now, huh? Except the article doesn’t say he has a plan, just is weighing options, and the options are all options I’ve seen discussed in public here and there. According to Reuters, here are the options:

• Whether the administration can delay payments to try to manage cash flows after August 2
• If the U.S. Constitution allows President Barack Obama to ignore Congress and the government to continue to issue debt
• Whether a 1985 finding by a government watchdog gives the government legal authority to prioritize payments.

Matt Yeglesias says that there are questions about the legality of all of these options, but of course not paying debts isn’t exactly aboveboard, either. “All the federal government’s spending obligations are spelled out in appropriations bills or laws providing for mandatory spending,” Matt says.

So, in other words, if the debt ceiling isn’t raised the Treasury Department will be walking on questionable legal grounds no matter what it does.

They’re looking at the constitutional option, they’re looking at old memos about payment prioritization, they’re looking at the attitude of the New York Fed, etc. Reuters portrays this as somewhat at odds with the fact that “Senior officials, including Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, have repeatedly said there are no contingency plans if lawmakers do not give the U.S. government the authority to borrow more money.” But the right way to understand this is that Geithner really doesn’t have any great tricks up his sleeve. Obviously, if Congress doesn’t do the responsible thing, something or other will happen. The U.S. Treasury won’t just vanish into a puff of smoke. But anything they do will be legally controversial and probably damaging to American credit.

And yes, already a Republican congressman is saying that if the White House goes with the 14th Amendment option, the President should be impeached.

I’m seeing conflicting stories about what might possibly be on the table as we go to the wire. I just hope that whatever is given away can be taken back by a future Democratically controlled Congress.

Update: Joseph Stiglitz —

I was among those who hoped that, somehow, the financial crisis would teach Americans (and others) a lesson about the need for greater equality, stronger regulation, and a better balance between the market and government. Alas, that has not been the case. On the contrary, a resurgence of right-wing economics, driven by ideology and special interests, once again threatens the global economy—or at least the economies of Europe and North America, where these ideas continue to flourish. . . .

. . . Do we really need another costly experiment with ideas that have repeatedly failed? We shouldn’t, but increasingly it appears that we will have to endure another one nonetheless. A failure of either Europe or the United States to return to robust growth would be bad for the global economy. The failure of both would be disastrous—even if the major emerging-market countries have attained self-sustaining growth. Unfortunately, unless wiser heads prevail, that is the way the world is heading.

David Frum argues that the looming debt ceiling crisis is mostly President Obama’s fault, since he is being entirely too soft with Republicans, who are refusing to compromise.

There is plenty of room for argument that the President should have picked up a bigger stick some time back. But it’s not his fault he’s been pushed into negotiating with crazy people.

President Obama has called congressional leaders to the White House tomorrow for more negotiations. Frum writes,

Perhaps he will there deploy some previously invisible form of leverage.

To the uninstructed eye, however, it looks like Obama has set up yet another lopsided bargaining table: He needs the Republicans to give him something, anything, that he can claim as a victory. This need, however, perversely puts the Republicans in the situation where if they give him something, anything, it will be represented as a defeat.

But you know that if the President had been playing hardball all this time, Frum would have written,

To the uninstructed eye, however, it looks like Obama has set up yet another lopsided bargaining table: He needs the Republicans to give him something, anything, that he can claim as a victory. as if the President is continuing his failed approach of browbeating Republicans into submission. This need The President’s gambit, however, perversely puts the Republicans in the situation where if they give him something, anything, it will be represented as a defeat.

The real reason the debt ceiling talks have taken the nation to the edge of disaster is that the Republican Party has been taken over by crazies. And in my experience, when crazy people are put in a position of power so that sane people have to deal or negotiate with them, the crazies win every time. They win for the simple reason that there is no reasoning with them.

And because that is true, sooner or later sane people will find themselves appeasing the craziness, because that’s the only way you can interact with crazy people. You have to smile and say of course you understand why they are upset about the gnomes in the restrooms who are sucking juice out of everyones’ brains, and you promise to take care of it as soon as they let Mr. Trumbell from the accounting department out of the cafeteria walk-in refrigerator.

If appeasing crazy people doesn’t work, your only other option is to find a way around them, such as keeping them distracted with shiny objects while police officers rescue Mr. Trumbell. Many people are suggesting the President use the 14th Amendment to bypass Congress. But Frum argues that if the President does turn to the 14th Amendment to save the nation and possibly the planet from disaster, the President would be impeached. But he may have no other options.

Some of you might remember this from the 1960s. It’s groovy.

Recommended by Goatherd:

Do read Michael Lind’s “The Three Fundamentalisms of the American Right.” It describes how the modern GOP went from being the party of genteel, establishment Burkeans to being the political equivalent of fundamentalist foot-washin’ Baptists.

And this sorta kinda goes along with the “adventures in reading” post I wrote yesterday. If you’ve spent much time with southern redneck fundies (and I grew up with ‘em), you know one of their foundational beliefs is that the Bible is written so that everyone can understand it, and we don’t need no steenkin’ priests to explain it to us, like Catholics do. Never mind that the King James version in particular is written in archaic English, and many Bible stories require having some understanding of the history and culture of the era to make sense of them.

The Bible Belt is flooded with people who go on and on about the importance of reading the Bible but who probably would flunk any pop quiz you could give them about what’s in the Bible. And that’s true for many who really do read their Bibles. That’s because “reading the Bible” is more ritual than study for them. Mindlessly reading the words in itself imparts some mystical grace, even if most of what the text actually is saying never soaks in.

So, you see the same thing with documents like the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Righties are mightily insulted if you suggest that perhaps they misunderstand these documents. But as we saw yesterday, you can put the words right in front of them and they still can’t see them. In spite of the Declaration’s clear statement, “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” they ridiculed E.J. Dionne for suggesting that the Constitution takes authority, its just powers, from We, the People.

The Bible, and sub-parts of the Bible like the Ten Commandments, and documents such as the Declaration and Constitution have enormous iconic power to this crew. (For example, it is well documented that people who believe in the beneficial effects of exhibiting the Ten Commandments in schools and courthouses often can’t name all ten commandments if put on the spot to do so.) They have fervently held beliefs about how these documents are to be interpreted. However, their beliefs about the Bible and the founding documents often are at odds with what these texts actually say. And if you try to educate them, you are declared a heretic.

I have one quibble with Lind’s analysis, which is that he speaks of fundamentalist Protestantism. That’s correct, strictly speaking, but as I recall from my earlier days, many of the denominations most associated with fundamentalism deny they are Protestants, or at least, they used to deny that. They used to believe that their denominations did not grow out of the Protestant Reformation but instead had been parts of the early church that remained underground during the centuries of Catholic domination. I’d be surprised if that’s changed, although perhaps it has.

Why there are regulations. I suppose you can argue that if damnfools want to ride motorcycles without helmets, that’s their business, and as a side benefit there will be fewer damnfools in the world.

However, as Susie Madrak says,

See, the rationale behind helmet laws is that head injuries are very expensive to treat. Even victims with insurance often end up on Medicaid after they’re tapped out, and that means taxpayers are picking up the rest of the tab. So yes, Ayn Rand fans, the state really does have a legitimate interest in mandating helmets. Sorry!

The news stories don’t say whether the particular biker whose unhelmeted head was smashed on the pavement after he flipped off his Harley had insurance. Since he died on the scene, the point is kind of moot. But one suspects the people who think the government has no business telling them to wear helmets are often the same people who think the government has no business telling them to get comprehensive medical insurance.

They are free riders more than easy riders.

Today E.J. Dionne writes about the Declaration of Independence. More specifically, he compares Tea Party rhetoric with sections of the Declaration to demonstrate that the baggers are not exactly the Founding Fathers’ representatives on earth they make themselves out to be. “We are at odds over the meaning of our history and why, to quote our Declaration of Independence, ‘governments are instituted,’” Dionne says. It’s a very good column, and I recommend reading it. See also Steve Benen.

Dionne also takes a swipe at Rick Perry –

This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently.

No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.” The Constitution’s Preamble speaks of promoting “a more perfect Union,” “Justice,” “the common defense,” “the general Welfare” and “the Blessings of Liberty.” These were national goals.

Hold that thought.

The literacy challenged Robert Stacy McCain posted about the Dionne column, and he mis-characterized Dionne’s column as a claim that people are not capable of understanding the Declaration, which was not the point.

To prove that people can understand the Declaration, McCain posted the entire text of the Declaration. He may not understand what the text means, but the boy can copy and paste with the best of ‘em.

But then the commenters go on to disprove McCain — the Declaration is right in front of them, and they have no idea what it means. So, apparently, they really aren’t capable of understanding it.

First comment:

Dionne: “This misunderstanding of our founding document is paralleled by a misunderstanding of our Constitution. “The federal government was created by the states to be an agent for the states, not the other way around,” Gov. Rick Perry of Texas said recently. No, our Constitution begins with the words “We the People” not “We the States.”

Right there, in a nutshell; he doesn’t understand that ‘the States,’ in this regard, are representatives of their citizenry, and speak in those citizens’ voice and name, not the other way around.

Against my better judgment, I responded –

Speaking of the Declaration, you may have missed the part where it says,

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation
on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In the minds of the Founders, governments ultimately take their legitimacy from the people, not from other governments.

What I didn’t say was — you’ve got the bleeping text of the bleeping Declaration right in front of you, and you still can’t see it!

Further — originally in the Constitution, it was understood that the states were represented in the Senate but the people, not the states, were represented in the House. In Federalist Paper #52, James Madison described his idea for the House of Representatives to be the “branch of the federal government which ought to be dependent on the people alone” and not on state governments. So while we think of representatives as being from states, they are not representing the states but the people. Go give Federalist #52 a careful read if you don’t believe me.

So, while the Constitution was ratified by delegates from the states, it was not created to be an agent of the states alone. Some parts of it were set up to represent the interests of states, but other parts of it directly represent the interests of the people directly. And the federal government ultimately takes its authority to govern from the people, not the states.

Another commenter disagreed with this, saying, “the federal government gets its *just*” powers to govern from the Constitution, not from the people or the states.”

To which I did not say –

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is the foundational philosophy that our country was built on; this was Jefferson laying out the moral justification for declaring independence. It’s right there bleeping in front of your face, and you can’t see it.

But I didn’t say that. I said,

No, you’re confusing two different things. The Constitution lays out the charter of how the government is structured and how the state and federal governments relate to each other, and of course it is the supreme law of the land. But the Constitution takes its authority from the consent of We, the People; see the preamble and also the Declaration.

This same commenter, btw, seems also to want to appeal the 17th Amendment and give the job of choosing senators back to state governments. Yeah, state governments are so much better.

The next rightie site I looked at was American Power, where our friend DD (I am not linking to him because if I do he will spend the next three days finding ways around the twit filter to drool on my blog) wrote,

Anyone can cherry pick the founding documents to find passages and quotations to fit their agenda. Progressives like Dionne are depressed that it’s been conservatives and libertarians who’ve been much more successful in capturing and representing the spirit of individual liberty animating our political culture.

But, weirdly, it’s the righties who are moving away from the spirit of the Declaration, and its argument that the just powers of government come from the consent of the governed, from We, the People. If you present this idea to them — plainly stated in the Declaration, which they apparently really can’t read — they blink at you as if you were speaking Martian. It’s an utterly alien idea to them.

Francois Furstenberg argues that the “welfare state” (I hate that term, btw) was initiated out of self-defense by the wealthy of the Gilded Age. The extreme economic disparities of the late 19th century was causing widespread violence and threatened to tear the country apart. And these were people with living memory of the Civil War, so tearing the country apart had a reality to them.

The Gilded Age plutocrats who first acceded to a social welfare system and state regulations did not do so from the goodness of their hearts. They did so because the alternatives seemed so much more terrifying.

I don’t think that’s all there was to it, but it’s an interesting thing to consider.

Greg Sargent:

In recent weeks, there’s been some question as to how far Dems are willing to go in making the explosive charge that Republicans are deliberately trying to sabotage the economy in order to improve their chances of defeating President Obama in 2012.

On a conference call just now with reporters, Senator Chuck Schumer made the most aggressive case we’ve heard yet along these lines, leaving little doubt that Dems are locking in behind this message as the deficit talks hit crunch time and as the 2012 campaign looms.

This is good, but they should have started doing this many weeks, if not months, ago.