Recommended reading on manufacturing in America

Given what's going on with manufacturing in central PA, the following Reuters article about the American auto and other manufacturing industries seems highly relevant reading:


http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6BF28720101216?pageNumber=1

Polis Sci 101 and 102

Someone sent me the link to David Brook's latest column in which he confirms his status as columnist most likely to shallowly borrow from social science theory. This time it is network theory, something I know about. He uses the terms "cluster" and "network" to describe two worldviews. Clusters are only linked to each other and do not have the links nor inclination to forge coalitions. "Networks" are the opposite. The clumsiness of his borrowing aside, what really got me revved up was my correspondent's suggestion that this was an incisive analysis with the subject line: "Poli Sci 101."

Link to Column: "Obama's Very Good Week."

My response:

First, this is typical commentariat (which Brooks is a clear part of). You look at the event sof thsi week and then proclaim the world is as it is NOW is ho wit must have always been and will always be. Obama CAMPAIGNED in 2008 on not extending tax breaks for the wealthiest. He and congressional Dems dithered for two years and then put this off until the lame duck session. So poor political strategy and not delivering on one of his signature campiagn issues led to a situation where he had a poor hand and weak leverage. And I am supposed to congratulate obama for that?

As far as I know, on most core issue for progressives, a label I will wear less reluctantly than others, Obama and his team not only did the leas t they could do, but often went out of their way to piss on us for asking for more. Health reform, foreclsoure moritorium, Afghanistan, Iraq, DADT, taxes, a bigger stimulus and so on. So, I'll tell you poli sci 102: you do not win elections without a BASE and a COALITION. While some part of 2010's schellacking may have been due to normal historical shifts, part of it was lack of enthusiasm in his base. The shut up and get in line attitude towards one's base does not work well unless you deliver more.

Brooks says:
"You don’t have to abandon your principles to cut a deal. You just have to acknowledge that there are other people in the world and even a president doesn’t get to stamp his foot and have his way. "

Well, that seems like exactly the strategy of the Republicans. Stamp their foot and demand no START treaty, no unemployment insurance, no DADT until they get the estate tax. Boehner or McConnell said their primary goal is to unseat him. So, stamping their foot until they get their way seems to be what they are doing. Obama coddles them. And, the media and the commentariat coddle them. It is supposed to be Obama who needs to build bridges and be a network liberal instead of a cluster liberal. Fine. Where are the network Republicans he is supposed to do this with? So, I'll stomach no lectures from sanctimonious wankers about how Obama or the Democrats are the source of hyper partisanship. It is the Republicans and the way the media thought framework enables this (which I think the Conservative movement created by making the media jump at the thought of being called liberal). And see, somehow, for me to suggest this as valid fact gets chalked up in Brooks and the commentariat's world view to me being a "far leftie" or "cluster leftie" because they don't have the stomach to take a stand or to have any accountability to history.

No one in the chattering classes suggest the Republicans should moderate, should be network conservatives.