Snickering readers in New York or Los Angeles might be tempted by all of this to conclude that Bachmann is uniquely crazy. But in fact, such tales by Bachmann work precisely because there are a great many people in America just like Bachmann, people who believe that God tells them what condiments to put on their hamburgers, who can't tell the difference between Soviet Communism and a Stafford loan, but can certainly tell the difference between being mocked and being taken seriously. When you laugh at Michele Bachmann for going on MSNBC and blurting out that the moon is made of red communist cheese, these people don't learn that she is wrong. What they learn is that you're a dick, that they hate you more than ever, and that they're even more determined now to support anyone who promises not to laugh at their own visions and fantasies.

A quick disclaimer: I don't believe that conservatives are necessarily stupid, or that conservative ideas are inherently bad, though conservatives do tend to support (in my opinion) a lot of bad ideas. Yet a large part of the reason someone like Michelle Bachmann is a viable presidential candidate is that she appeals to people who celebrate stupidity and ignorance as virtues and who equate "small-town values" with authenticity.

I don't like Mitt Romney or Jon Huntsman, and I hope neither of them will be elected president next fall. But they don't scare me like Bachmann does.

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, the No. 2 Senate Republican and the party’s only other representative in the talks, said later Thursday that he would also miss the next negotiating session as he and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, turned up the pressure on President Obama to play a larger role in the push for a debt limit deal.

“President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes, or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit,” Mr. McConnell and Mr. Kyl said in a joint statement. “He can’t have both. But we need to hear from him.”

What strikes me about McConnell and Kyl's statement is that it is the exact inverse of the truth. President Obama and the Democrats are trying to address the deficit and believe raising taxes is one of the ways to do so. The Republicans meanwhile want no new taxes- ever, any time, for any reason- and are willing to endure a major deficit crisis in order to meet this end.

Mitt Romney
Mitch Daniels
Mike Huckabee
Tim Pawlenty
Jon Huntsman
Herman Cain
Michelle Bachmann
Ron Paul
Gary Johnson
Donald Trump

Is that it? Am I forgetting anyone?

The field seems split between wonky, competent manager types (Romney, Daniels, Pawlenty, Huntsman, Johnson) and fire-breathing Tea Party populist types (Huckabee, Trump, Bachmann, Paul, Cain). The task for the GOP would be to bridge the two groups, but this is easier said than done. Of the second group I mentioned, only Huckabee is remotely electable and he doesn't even seem interested in running. Ron Paul has his fans but is too isolationist for the Republican mainstream. Nobody knows who Cain is. Bachmann has promise but is kind of a poor man's Sarah Palin, isn't she? And Trump I talked about earlier.

You'd think the base would hold their nose and vote for the managerial types, but these guys have significant flaws, too. Romney and Huntsman are Mormon, a religion viewed as highly suspect by mainstream evangelicals. Romney may be unable to dodge his health-care past, while Huntsman was sleeping with the enemy as Obama's ambassador to China. Daniels earlier called for a "truce" on social issues, something plainly unacceptable to a sizeable chunk of the GOP base. Johnson likewise is too libertarian; he's still best known as an advocate for drug legalization.

That leaves Pawlenty as the candidate with the least blemish, and as a former governor he has the "executive experience" that people think matters. He also looks the part. Will it make a difference? Ultimately it's too early to tell. But I get the distinct impression that most Republicans think the 2012 election is one to sit out. President Obama isn't wildly popular, but he's doing OK considering the sluggish economy. Rumblings of discontent on the left have been fairly muted so far. No serious primary challenger seems likely. He also has an experienced, successful campaign team and the advantage of incumbency. Should the economy improve significantly (no sure thing, mind you) he'd be pretty much unbeatable. Even if it doesn't, he could slug out a victory. I'd bet the smarter Republicans know this and are going to bide their time for 2016.

Democrats may be tempted to take pleasure in the fact that Trump will likely push the GOP presidential field to the right, and thereby help Obama in 2012. But this would be sheer myopia, and any delight over Trump’s arrival on the political scene is entirely misplaced. The Trump ascendancy calls not for glee, but for serious concern about the state of our country.

I think this is overwrought for several reasons. First, the only reason Trump's political views are getting any attention is due to his celebrity. He outpolls other Republicans because people simply know who he is. The average rank and file Republican might have more in common with Tim Pawlenty, but who the hell is Tim Pawlenty? Trump, he knows, is the guy with the funny hair who has a TV show.

Secondly, does anyone actually think Trump will be a serious candidate ten months from now? It's one thing to fly around the country and deliver speeches, it's quite another to decamp in Iowa in the middle of winter and seriously campaign for office. Something tells me that Trump doesn't have the gumption to do that. By then, anyway, the peculiar science of retail politics will be at play and the more experienced politicians will have an advantage.

Third, Trump's viewpoints don't constitute a coherent criticism of Obama rather than just an inchoate series of blustering jabs; his speeches are akin to someone tossing raw steaks at a pack of wild dogs. Trump isn't tapping into some pocket of Republican rage that doesn't already exist; he's merely using his sizable bully pulpit to articulate feelings about the president that a fair chunk of the country has anyway.

But again, we have the situation where a clearly insane person was able to obtain a gun without difficulty and murder six other individuals while wounding 19 others. One of my Facebook friends wrote that he hoped this shooting wouldn't lead to further restrictions on guns. Further restrictions? The assassin in this case was deemed too mentally unfit to attend a community college yet passed a gun purchase background check. Why do we take such great pains to license people to drive cars while allowing anyone over a certain age who doesn't have a criminal record to buy a gun?

The reason, of course, is that a significant percentage of Americans willfully misinterpret the 2nd Amendment and believe it grants them the right to arm themselves at will without restriction. These people, represented by organizations such as the National Rifle Association, fight any act of legislation that they deem to be restrictive of gun use. And they've won. Democrats don't push back on gun control anymore. They've essentially ceded the issue in an attempt to attract more rural voters to their side.

A possible solution: why not make the purchase of guns a process one must apply for, complete with interviews, so that only determined and sound-minded people would bother? Why not make the purchase of guns akin to, say, obtaining a drivers' license? Therefore those Americans who want to own guns badly enough will be able to do so, but that people like Jared Lee Loughner would be turned away once it was determined that he was not the sort of person to trust with a firearm.

Sadly, such a proposal in the American context is altogether too modest to consider.

Edwards' short-term legacy is likely to be her endurance of a series of personal tragedies:  the death of her teenaged son in a car accident,  her cancer diagnosis, and ultimately her husband's affair and paternity. Her public persona through it all was very gracious and though there were rumblings that she was an uncompromising and difficult person in private, she is likely to remain a highly popular figure in the public imagination.

Elizabeth's death likely marks the end of the public life of  her widower John Edwards, who swept onto the national scene as John Kerry's running mate in his unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2004. I will say now that I never liked Edwards- his blow-dried populism struck me as hollow, and his inexperience in foreign policy was painfully exposed during his debate with Dick Cheney in the run-up to the '04 election. I will also admit to more than my fair share of schadenfreude when Edwards' tomfoolery came to light as well as an overwhelming feeling of relief that Barack Obama, not he, had won the 2008 Democratic nomination.

But despite his obvious inadequacies Edwards was a forceful advocate for health care reform at a time when many Democratic politicians were still shy about embracing it, mindful of Bill Clinton's failed push in 1993. Because both Obama and Hillary Clinton regarded Edwards as a competitive threat, both co-opted his plan to a great extent and health-care reform once again became central to the Democratic domestic agenda. As a result, Barack Obama's successful passage of health care reform, though far from ideal, is indebted to John Edwards.

From what I've read Elizabeth's impassioned support for health care reform served as a major inspiration for her husband, as she was regarded as the more intellectual and policy-fluent of the two. It seems logical to say that without Elizabeth Edwards, we would not have health care reform at all in this country. That, I hope, will serve as her ultimate legacy.

Hi students,

We received a call today from a SIPA alumnus who is working at the State Department. He asked us to pass along the following information to anyone who will be applying for jobs in the federal government, since all would require a background investigation and in some instances a security clearance.

The documents released during the past few months through Wikileaks are still considered classified documents. He recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter. Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.

Regards,
Office of Career Services

This writer from the Morningside Post found the insinuation that we'll damage our careers by commenting on the Wikileaks scandal offensive. Even Democracy Now! picked up the story.  I do find the story a little ridiculous. I wonder if in five years someone will get this e-mail:

Dear so and so,

We've reviewed your application to work for the Department of State and have decided we can't offer you the position you seek. Although you're eminently qualified and talented and we'd love to have you under ordinary circumstances, the fact that you referred to Julian Assange as a 'douchebag' in a Facebook post dated December 1, 2010 and wrote three pithy paragraphs evincing skepticism of the ultimate significance of Wikileaks means that you'll never get a security clearance and you'll never work for Uncle Sam. Don't even think about the Peace Corps, loser!

Sincerely,

Foggy Bottom

Who knows? I could be wrong. But it seems ridiculous to me that it's damaging to write about a current event that is on the front page of the newspaper every day. It isn't as if Private Bradley Manning leaked the cables to SIPA students!

UPDATE: Here's The Huffington Post with more, including this quote from one of my classmates:

"They seem to be unable to make the distinction between having an opinion and having a contractual obligation to keep a secret," said Hugh Sansom, a masters student from New York.

Students were taken aback by the email, said Sansom, who described his non-American classmates — nearly half of this year's incoming class at Columbia speaks a native language other than English — as "amused and surprised."

Exactly.

At the same time, the cable leak raises some uncomfortable questions. Would I be more supportive if the leaks occurred under a Bush, rather than Obama, Administration? What if Bradley Manning had leaked the information to accredited journalists rather than Assange?

To be honest, I don't know the answer to these questions. One of my criticisms of recent US foreign policy was its lack of transparency, dating from the Bush era lies about Iraq and the unlawful detention practices associated with the bogus 'war on terror'. Obama's reluctance to reform these trappings of a security-industrial state have been inadequate and disappointing.

Then again it seems perverse to expect all diplomatic activity to be conducted in the open. None of the revelations thus far have been more than just embarrassing- did anyone think the US would have a more positive appraisal of Russian democracy?- but the need for diplomats to speak candidly with their governments is obvious.

What effect will these leaks have? I doubt Assange would be happy to hear this, but the likeliest effect of the info dump is increased secrecy. Diplomats will now be aware that their missives are potential targets for dissemination and will take steps to conceal them further. This will raise the costs of communication but will ultimately have little effect on how the US conducts its business around the world.

One wonders if Assange believes that the crux of American power- something he is reported to view as malevolent- is its moral authority, and that the release of sensitive materials will undermine this authority and thus American power. The source of American power is actually pretty simple- money and guns- and no amount of leaking will change that.

Isn't it telling that out of all the bullshit that happened during his Presidency- 9/11, the two wars, the Axis of Evil speech, Hurricane Katrina, the financial collapse, torture, etc- the moment Bush cited as among the most disgusting during that time was being called a racist by Kanye West? This is the same Kanye West whose other moment in the spotlight was when he drunkenly interrupted a country star during an awards performance and mumbled incoherently before exiting the stage.

The whole point of Bush's book tour and press appearances are to rehabilitate his image, but I'm not buying it. Even though he was in office less than two years ago, it is important to remember just how awful of a President he was, and how the biggest problem for Obama, far bigger than any of the other 'factors' currently popular in Washington, was the scale of the mess that he inherited from Bush.

To be frank, and apologies for the poor language, but Bush fucked up, and now Obama's in the process of unfucking. And as everyone knows, fucking up is much easier than unfucking up.

By the way, the picture of Bush hugging the rabbit comes from this website which also has a funny collection of our ex-leader's many malapropisms.

UPDATE: This Stephen Walt piece brilliantly eviscerates the notion that Bush 'wasn't as bad as we thought'. And Walt is only talking about foreign policy.