The reaction of the Republican right, and especially bloggers on the right-side longitudes, to today’s indictments is not surprising, but shocking nevertheless. The reaction, found on some blogs and heard in reactions on the radio and television, can be summarized as: This is really "just Martha Stewart stuff." You’re hearing from almost every Republican operative and spinmeister, "How important is this if he didn’t indict on the underlying charge of outing a covert CIA operative."

Astonishingly, truly, given Patrick Fitzgerald’s stated theory of his case: that Scooter Libby completely invented a false story to tell the FBI, the Grandy Jury, and the Department of Justice prosecutors about the naming of Valerie Plame: that he told them — even though he had discussed her identity at least three to four times in June 2003 with Vice President Cheney, an Undersecretary of State, Ari Fleischer and a CIA briefer, and had actively sought out information about Wilson’s trip and any involvement of his wife — that he told them he had first heard about her name from other journalists in an offhand, almost innocent way.

The Republican reaction to the charges is astonishing because it just further buttresses the sense that many leading Republicans are totally willing to countenance dirty tricks, some of them criminal, to achieve their ends, to avoid real debate about tough issues, and are unwilling to really acknowledge how serious these charges are. If it was the first time this had occurred, it might not be so troubling. But there is, unfortunately, now a long legacy of this, stretching back to McCarthy and Nixon’s red-baiting in the 1950s, continuing through Watergate, resurfacing in Iran-Contra, and now in this case. It makes one wonder whether there is something the political make-up, indeed DNA, of Republicans that lead them to tolerate this.

I say this all reluctantly, as I have worked in the past for a great Republican senator, and have many friends who are still actively engaged in politics as Republicans. They are all good, honest people. But for too long, in too many administrations, they’ve tolerated the McCarthys, the Nixons, the Oliver North’s, and been too willing to engage in questionable behavior to suppress legimitate, needed debate. At great cost, in retrospect, to the country.

An interesting confluence of media inputs prompts this post about the Democrats and taxation. One was an op-ed piece in today’s WaPo by David Broder, the other a hilarious speech by Thomas Frank heard on NPR (haven’t been able to find a free version, paid for audio here).

Broder basically asks what plan the Democrats will propose to right the fiscal wreck of the Bush administation and the bloated deficits it has offered the country. The answer, from the DLC, is "short-term tax increases in return for long-term savings on entitlement
programs and improvements in the administration of government."

Frank’s radio lecture was basically a recapitulation of the themes of his book; how Republicans have won over working class voters with "moral values" rhetoric, despite the fact the Republican economic agenda is antithetic to their well-being.

I believe Frank is correct in some degree in his diagnosis, but his proposed cure — Democrats being Democrats, and offering a traditionally liberal economic agenda — would probably result in Walter Mondale/Michael Dukakis electoral drubbings.

The key issue here is taxes. The Republicans’ key economic plank that has appealed to working class voters (and many, many others) is "lower taxes." Most voters already feel like they pay a lot to the government when it’s all added up (federal income tax, social security, state income tax, property tax, and so on). Republicans have cleverly and effectively used the issue as a wedge for twenty five years.

This is not an issue most Democrats intuitively understand, so classicly illustrated in Broder’s column. Our knee-jerk reaction is to balance the budget through higher taxes. A year ago, commiserating over and analysing the 2004 election results with college friends, one, a senior political correspondent for the WaPo, asked (heretically!): "Don’t we already pay too much in taxes?" I was living in the UK at that time, thought about his question, and realized that indeed I was paying about the same (or less) in total taxes than I had living in the United States when local, social security, and property taxes were all included. And, arguably, I was getting far more value for my taxes in the UK — free medical care, free education (more or less) for my children had we stayed, a far better public transportation network, lower crime.

Balancing the budget, and getting our financial house in order, must be priorities for the Democrats. But it would be a mistake for the Democrats to even think about tax increases at this point, except very small, targeted ones that don’t affect most voters (like the estate tax). Far better to address spending, to propose difficult (and certainly hard) reductions where possible, and to offer innovative ideas on how to harmonize local government and federal spending so that the cumulative burden is lessened.

If we really wanted to remove a regime that is a cancer in the heart of the Middle East, maybe our troops US should have paid a visit to Iran.

FURTHER UPDATE: An interesting cultural sidenote. While living in London, I found the differences in coverage of the Middle East instructive and surprising. This story provides a useful example. The New York Times headline is "Iran’s President Says ‘Israel Must be Wiped Off the Map." I thought I would check out reportage on the story from the Beeb. Their header is: "Israel Warns of Tehran Danger." Perhaps all very innocent sounding to the average reader, but more complicated when one knows that the Beeb is generally critical of Israel, and the British public more sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians than the Israelis (if public opinion polls are to be believed). Odd, in that light, to lead with Israel’s reaction, not the comments of Ahmadinejad, which are horrifying.

EVEN FURTHER UPDATE: Top story on Ahmadinejad’s comments on Beeb now sports this headline: "Iran Leader’s Words ‘Sicken’ UK." Better, that.

NYT reports in the Tuesday edition that Cheney told Libby about "Valerie Flame."

If true, the beginning of something big, big, big.