<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Michael Lind</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/writer/michael_lind/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 28 May 2012 00:30:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>What killed social conservatism?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/what_killed_social_conservatism/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/what_killed_social_conservatism/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 20:37:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Issues]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12924634</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Technological progress has made it impossible for conservatives to obscure the truth about Americans' sex lives]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Growing public support for gay rights, including gay marriage, is the latest example of the moral liberalism that has transformed advanced industrial societies in the last few generations. The social traditionalists who claimed to be a “moral majority” in the United States in the 1980s are acting like an embattled, declining minority in the second decade of the 21st century. A few years ago the conservative activist Paul Weyrich declared that the right had lost “the culture war” and called on social conservatives to withdraw from mainstream society into their own traditionalist enclaves.</p><p>Many paranoid social conservatives blame the triumph of moral liberalism on a conspiracy of sinister secular humanists, using the media and the public schools to indoctrinate their children and grandchildren in a godless morality. But the truth is that social conservatism has been undermined by technological progress, which has increased the opportunities for freedom in matters of sex and censorship while raising the costs of enforcing traditional norms.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/what_killed_social_conservatism/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/22/what_killed_social_conservatism/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>36</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why do conservatives hate freedom?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/why_do_conservatives_hate_freedom/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/why_do_conservatives_hate_freedom/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 16:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12920240</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The movement's opposition to gay rights is just the latest move in its history of opposing personal liberties]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why do conservatives hate freedom? The question may be startling. After all, don’t conservatives claim they are protecting liberty in America against liberal statism, which they compare to communism or fascism? But the conservative idea of “freedom” is a very peculiar one, which excludes virtually every kind of liberty that ordinary Americans take for granted.</p><p>I distinguish conservatives from libertarians, who, on issues of personal liberty, tend to side with liberals. Since World War II, mainstream conservatives have opposed every expansion of personal liberty in the United States.</p><p>During the civil rights era, the leading conservative politician, Barry Goldwater, and the leading conservative intellectual, William F. Buckley Jr., along with most of their followers opposed federal laws banning racial discrimination. To their credit, they later admitted they had been mistaken; indeed, both Buckley and Goldwater supported gay rights late in their careers. But at the time that conservative support for a color-blind society might have made a difference, the leaders of American conservatism sided with the Southern segregationists. They claimed they did so, not because of racial prejudice, but because they feared federal tyranny — a weaselly stance that, in practice, made them side with white supremacist tyranny at the state level. If they had truly believed in their own propaganda about federalism, conservatives could have opposed federal civil rights legislation while campaigning for civil rights laws at the state level. They didn’t.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/why_do_conservatives_hate_freedom/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/15/why_do_conservatives_hate_freedom/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>220</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Oops &#8212; wrong future!</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/oops_wrong_future/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/oops_wrong_future/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12916704</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What kind of infrastructure do we really need?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The need for public investment in American infrastructure should not be a partisan issue.  But the capture of the Republican Party by free market fundamentalists and neo-Confederate localists has led to the identification of the infrastructure issue with the Democrats.   The progressive case for infrastructure investment is compelling on many levels.  In the short term, it can put unemployed capital and labor to work, while enhancing the long-term productivity of the economy, by reducing the costs of transportation and telecommunication and energy.  And leaders of the center-left including President Obama have been convinced by the case for a National Infrastructure Bank that removes decisions about the funding of projects of national significance from the petty politics of congressional earmarking, while tapping private capital markets for public purposes.</p><p>Unfortunately, the case for infrastructure investment has suffered from the lack of a plausible vision of the next American infrastructure.  Unlike in the 1860s, when the transcontinental railroad caught the public imagination, and the 1950s, when the interstate highway system symbolized a promising future, the present day lacks a consensus about what America’s future infrastructure should be.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/oops_wrong_future/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/10/oops_wrong_future/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>41</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Goodbye, Davos man</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/goodbye_davos_man/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/goodbye_davos_man/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 May 2012 14:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Globalization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12912775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Pundits haven't realized it yet, but the age of economic globalization is over]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Now and then there are moments that clarify major trends in politics. Such a moment occurred recently, when François Hollande, the Socialist candidate for the French presidency, agreed with the French far right on the need <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/27/us-france-election-idUSBRE83I0EZ20120427 " target="_blank">to further limit immigration to France</a>:  “In a period of crisis, which we are experiencing, limiting economic immigration is necessary and essential.” For his part, Hollande’s opponent Nicolas Sarkozy criticized immigration in his first electoral run and as president of France has denounced deregulated markets.</p><p>This is not just a French phenomenon, nor is it limited to immigration policy. In most of the world’s advanced democracies, the egalitarian left and the nationalist right are growing in strength among voters. After three decades in which apostles of financial deregulation, offshoring and immigration liberalization dominated the capitals of major Western countries, the pendulum is swinging in the other direction.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/goodbye_davos_man/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/05/01/goodbye_davos_man/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>30</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A radical tax solution</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/a_radical_tax_solution/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/a_radical_tax_solution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:35:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12908598</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The "centrist" Simpson-Bowles plan concedes too much to conservatives. What America needs is a consumption tax]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nobody can complain that ideas are missing from the debate about American tax policy, which will heat up as the 2013 expiration of the Bush tax cuts approaches. There are plenty of competing ideas for tax reform. Unfortunately, most of the ideas are misguided.  America needs radical tax reform — but of a kind different from the conventional proposals offered by the center, right and left.</p><p>The dominant approach to tax reform is considered to be “centrist” and symbolized by, among others, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/simpson-bowles-zombie-ret_b_1435989.html" target="_blank">the Simpson-Bowles plan</a>.</p><p>In what is advertised as a grand bargain between the right and the left, tax rates will be lowered, to appease conservatives, in return for closing many tax expenditures or “loopholes” (for some reason this is presented as a concession to liberals). Revenue that would otherwise be sheltered from taxation by the abolished loopholes would, to some degree, raise overall federal revenue collection, even with lower rates.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/a_radical_tax_solution/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/24/a_radical_tax_solution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>65</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Can politics catch up with technology?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/can_politics_catch_up_with_technology/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/can_politics_catch_up_with_technology/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Apr 2012 14:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American History]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12871911</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Great Recession exposed a huge gap between technology and politics -- and a realignment may be coming]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">Altered by transformative technologies, the economy is changing so fast it is leaving politics and government behind. What is true in this election year was also the situation in the 1920s and the 1850s.</p><p>In my new book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Land-Promise-Economic-History-United/dp/0061834807/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1334610357&amp;sr=8-1" target="_blank">Land of Promise: An Economic History of the United States</a>," I argue that American government has often lagged a generation or two behind technology-induced economic change. Following the birth of the U.S. in a world of water and wind, of sailing ships, canals and water-wheels, the American economy has been transformed by three “industrial revolutions.” The first, based on the steam engine, produced the railroad and the steam-powered factory as well as the telegraph. The key technologies of the second industrial revolution were the internal combustion engine, installed in cars, trucks, ships, trains and planes, and electric power generation. The most recent industrial revolution, the third, is based on information technology, which is rapidly transforming everything from the way we work to the way we play.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/can_politics_catch_up_with_technology/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/17/can_politics_catch_up_with_technology/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Gambling with economic security</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/gambling_with_economic_security/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/gambling_with_economic_security/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Apr 2012 19:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stock Market]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12847291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The "universal investor society" is a bad idea whose time has passed]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is the problem with capitalism that there are too few capitalists? Is the solution to encourage every American to get into the stock market? Before the tech bubble burst at the beginning of this century, I thought this was an interesting notion that deserved careful consideration. Mea culpa. Today, after two disastrous stock market crashes in less than a decade, I think that the idea of “the investor society” or “the ownership society” or “universal capitalism” (defined narrowly as encouraging wider individual ownership of stocks and bonds, as opposed to broadly, to include proposals for sharing profits from public resources or sovereign wealth funds) is a profoundly misguided idea. The proponents of universal shareholding in the 1990s were right that more Americans should share in the gains from economic growth, which have gone disproportionately to the owners of capital and overpaid CEOs. But the method of spreading the gains by encouraging individual working Americans to risk their money in the stock market was ill-conceived.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/gambling_with_economic_security/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/10/gambling_with_economic_security/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Justices run amok: Fixing the Supreme Court</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/justices_run_amok_fixing_the_supreme_court/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/justices_run_amok_fixing_the_supreme_court/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12787891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Judges on the right and left legislate from the bench. So why don\'t we just elect them?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Monday, we had another example of the Supreme Court’s ideological division: a 5-4 ruling, along partisan lines, giving police the right to conduct strip searches for any offense. This came on the heels of last week’s oral arguments before the Supreme Court about the constitutionality of the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act, which led many observers to predict that the nation’s highest judicial body will strike down part or all of the controversial healthcare reform package. But the hearings were instructive in other ways. They showed once again that political partisanship is closely correlated to a justice’s view of the law. And they proved that the Supreme Court once again is functioning, not as a court, but as a third house of the federal legislature.</p><p>The U.S. Constitution, like many state constitutions, really is two constitutions in one. There is the black-letter constitution, which consists of rules about which there is little or no dispute. Most of these have to do with qualifications for representatives, like Article I, Section 3, Clause 1, as amended: “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.” Not a whole lot of room for interpretation there.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/justices_run_amok_fixing_the_supreme_court/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/04/03/justices_run_amok_fixing_the_supreme_court/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>34</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Citizenship for sale</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/27/citizenship_for_sale/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/27/citizenship_for_sale/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:15:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12742681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A sleazy visa program lets the rich buy green cards while other immigrants wait in line]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Should American citizenship be for sale? You may not be aware of it, but without any significant public debate, your elected representatives in Washington have already answered the question in the affirmative.</p><p>The government does not sell U.S. citizenship directly — yet.  But already it sells citizenship indirectly. Rich foreigners who put up a minimal amount of money in “investments” in the U.S. are permitted to buy green cards for themselves and their families, which permit them to apply after five years for the coveted privilege of American citizenship.</p><p>Here’s how it works. The EB-5 immigration program allows citizens of foreign countries who do not qualify for admission to the U.S. under any other immigration category (such as relatives of U.S. citizens or guest workers) to buy the right to live and work here by investing at least half a million dollars in the U.S. in a government-approved investment. If the investment lasts for two years, green cards authorizing legal permanent resident status are issued to the investors and their families. Up to 10,000 people a year can be admitted to the U.S. under the EB-5 program.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/27/citizenship_for_sale/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/27/citizenship_for_sale/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How the rich took over airport security</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/how_the_rich_took_over_airport_security/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/how_the_rich_took_over_airport_security/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 17:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air Travel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Transportation Security Administration]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12721421</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Security checks were one of America's most democratic places -- until rich passengers got their own speedy lines]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The other day at Bergstrom Airport in Austin, Texas, I witnessed a striking manifestation of the new American plutocracy. Along with getting a photo at the Department of Motor Vehicles and sitting in a jury pool, standing in line at airport security with a mob of other people, miserable though it is, remains one of the few examples of civic equality in our increasingly oligarchic republic. Much airport security, of course, is theater, designed to provide alibis for bureaucrats and politicians in the event of a terrorist attack. But while we can debate what a rational airport security system would look like, no rational system would discriminate among passengers on the basis of ability to pay.</p><p>That is what makes the policy of Delta Airlines so shockingly un-American.  In Austin, Delta had not one but two lines that fed into the Transportation Security Administration checkpoint area. One line was mixed race, mixed class and mixed age. The other line was usually empty. Now and then a white, middle-aged man would appear in the second line and the first line would be halted as he went directly into the TSA checkpoint.</p><p>“Who are those guys?” I asked a TSA officer, when I reached the front of the second-class citizen line.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/how_the_rich_took_over_airport_security/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/22/how_the_rich_took_over_airport_security/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>317</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Behind the red state-blue state divide</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/behind_the_red_state_blue_state_divide/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/behind_the_red_state_blue_state_divide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media Criticism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12669851</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[To understand America's regional politics, we need to look beyond the cable news explanations of race and gender]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For those interested in American politics, the national media provide all the information they could want, in the form of live reports from the campaign headquarters and campaign buses of candidates, constant updates of polling numbers, interviews with voters alone and in groups, clips of speeches, animated maps of states and counties and congressional districts — everything except the one thing that would make sense of it all: regional political geography.</p><p>The importance of geography in American politics could not be clearer. To begin with, there is the red state-blue state map, showing Republican-leaning states in the form of an L uniting the West and South and Democratic-leaning states clustered in the Northeast, around the Great Lakes and on the West Coast. From election to election, states shift from one color category to another, but the pattern remains remarkably stable.</p><p>Within parties, geography is just as important. In the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney’s base is the Northeast and parts of the West. Rick Santorum does best in the Midwest, Newt in the South.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/behind_the_red_state_blue_state_divide/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/13/behind_the_red_state_blue_state_divide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>52</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What if all sides are wrong about taxes?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/what_if_all_sides_are_wrong_about_taxes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/what_if_all_sides_are_wrong_about_taxes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Mar 2012 15:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12514061</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Keynesian left to the Friedman right, no one on today's political spectrum has a viable economic plan]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What I am about to say will offend just about everybody, but it can’t be helped. Each of the major schools of thought about taxation in America — right, left and center — is trapped in its own particular fantasy world.</p><p>In its views on taxation, the American right is the most divorced from reality. As the fantasy economic plans of the various Republican presidential candidates prove, the right is still stuck in the Reagan era, calling for more and more tax cuts, with undefined spending cuts to be made at some future date, and with deficits and debt tolerated in the meantime — at least if Republicans control the political branches of the federal government.</p><p>The right’s derangement on the subject of taxation is often blamed on the anti-tax activist Grover Norquist, or tax-revolt populists like California’s Howard Jarvis in the 1970s. But it has deeper philosophical roots in the libertarian movement, which dominates the right’s economic policy, though not its foreign policy or social policy.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/what_if_all_sides_are_wrong_about_taxes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/what_if_all_sides_are_wrong_about_taxes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>203</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>An insider&#8217;s guide to the great manufacturing debate</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/an_insiders_guide_to_the_great_manufacturing_debate/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/an_insiders_guide_to_the_great_manufacturing_debate/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:10:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christine Romer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12399161</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two economic visions compete for the future of the American economy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Manufacturing is back in the news.  The combination of Obama administration initiatives to help American manufacturing with criticism of China’s unfair trade and industrial policies by candidates for the Republican presidential nomination has produced a bipartisan backlash by prominent academic economists including <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/05/business/do-manufacturers-need-special-treatment-economic-view.html?_r=2">Christine Romer</a>, a Democrat and a former Obama economic adviser, in the New York Times., and <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204883304577221630318169656.html">Michael Boskin</a>, a Republican and adviser to the first President Bush.</p><p>Romer and Boskin agree that government should do nothing to save or promote the manufacturing sector in the United States.  Their critiques of industrial policy, in turn, have produced responses by prominent advocates of federal aid for technological innovation and manufacturing, including <a href="http://prestowitz.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/06/why_dont_economists_get_it_on_manufacturing">Clyde Prestowitz</a>, a former Reagan administration official and founder of the Economic Strategy Institute.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/an_insiders_guide_to_the_great_manufacturing_debate/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/22/an_insiders_guide_to_the_great_manufacturing_debate/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The right&#8217;s lost causes</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/the_rights_lost_causes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/the_rights_lost_causes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12349841</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the culture war to foreign policy, conservatives have been defeated on every front]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>American conservatives are deranged by anger — and why shouldn’t they be? For decades, they have been losing on multiple fronts. From the culture war to the welfare state to foreign policy, conservative initiatives have been rejected by the American people and repudiated by public policy. At most they have won a few battles while losing the war.</p><p>Consider what Pat Buchanan and other social conservatives called “the culture war” in the 1980s (after Bismarck’s Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church in 19th-century Imperial Germany). Even with a conservative majority on the Supreme Court, Roe v. Wade is in no danger of being overruled. The most that conservatives can do is back state-level initiatives like forcing pregnant women to view sonograms of fetuses — initiatives that are soon slapped down by the federal courts.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/the_rights_lost_causes/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/the_rights_lost_causes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Who&#8217;s afraid of industrial policy?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/whos_afraid_of_industrial_policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/whos_afraid_of_industrial_policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12266291</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Government support of industry is the American tradition]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>President Obama’s emphasis in his State of the Union message on revitalizing American manufacturing has led to predictable attacks by critics that he is practicing “industrial policy.”  This criticism is largely limited to the libertarian right, which has watched in dismay as Mitt Romney denounces unfair Chinese practices and Newt Gingrich promises to revive the government-backed American space-flight industry.</p><p>In debates in the 1980s and 1990s, the term was often associated with proposals to emulate one or another aspect of the export-oriented Japanese model. Today, however, critics use “industrial policy” in blanket condemnations of any government support of particular technologies as well as particular industries and particular companies.  Industrial policy, they allege, is both un-American and doomed to failure.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/whos_afraid_of_industrial_policy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/whos_afraid_of_industrial_policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>22</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How conservatives lie about government</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/how_conservatives_lie_about_government/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/how_conservatives_lie_about_government/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Jan 2012 13:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12223151</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Social Security hysteria to "Obamacare" madness, right-wing propaganda is increasingly divorced from reality]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One benefit of the prolonged campaign for the Republican presidential nomination has been the revelation that most of the 20 or 30 percent of Americans who describe themselves as conservatives live in a fantasy world.  In their imaginations, Barack Obama, a centrist Democrat with roots in Eisenhower Republicanism rather than Rooseveltian liberalism, is a radical figure trying to take America down the path of “European socialism.” The signature healthcare reform of Obama and the Democratic Congress, modeled on Mitt Romney’s insurance-friendly Massachusetts healthcare program and closely resembling a proposal by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, is described as “statist,” “socialist” or “fascist” (as though Hitler came to power with the goal of providing subsidies to private health insurance companies).</p><p>How can otherwise sane people believe such lunacy?  The answer is that members of the right-wing counterculture are brainwashed -- that is the only appropriate term -- by  the apocalyptic propaganda ground out constantly by the conservative media establishment. A perfect example is a recent essay by Philip Klein, a senior editorial writer of the Washington Examiner, the right-wing newspaper owned by the billionaire Philip Anshutz:  <a href="http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/welfare-state-destroying-america/331016">“The Welfare State Is Destroying America.”</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/how_conservatives_lie_about_government/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/24/how_conservatives_lie_about_government/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>127</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why do the Republicans nominate blue bloods?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Jan 2012 20:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Populism]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12181191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ The potent combination of Jacksonian populism and old money oligarchy]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong></strong>If Mitt Romney receives the Republican presidential nomination, he will be the third upper-class candidate in a row nominated for the presidency by a party that speaks in the accents of Jacksonian populism and pretends to be against “elites.”</p><p>America may not have titled aristocrats, but it has always had patrician families, defined by a combination of wealth, educational affiliations and public service.  Today’s Republicans may sound like George Wallace in their denunciations of paper-pushing bureaucrats and pointy-headed intellectuals, but their presidential selection pool is a very selective country club.</p><p>Between 1980 and 2008, inclusive, there have been eight presidential elections.  The Republicans have nominated five presidential candidates — Ronald Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush and John McCain.  During the same time, the Democrats have nominated seven presidential candidates — Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, John Kerry and Barack Obama.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/17/why_do_the_republicans_nominate_blue_bloods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>109</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama&#8217;s revolution in American strategy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jan 2012 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pentagon]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=12003141</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[So much for “World War III” and “the Long War”]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While the media has focused on the Republican presidential primaries, offstage the greatest revolution in American foreign policy in a generation has occurred, with little discussion or debate surrounding its <a href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2012/01/05/obama_announces_new_defense_strategy_and_spending_112676.html">announcement</a> last week by President Obama.</p><p>The relative lack of controversy marks a contrast with the last great transformation of American foreign policy, which took place at the end of the Cold War.  Even before the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, it was clear that the Soviet-American conflict that had structured U.S. foreign policy since the late 1940s was coming to an end.  For several years there was a vigorous debate in the mainstream media as well as expert circles about what should replace the Cold War strategy of containment of communism as the basis of American grand strategy.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/obamas_revolution_in_american_strategy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>19</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Race, liberty and Ron Paul</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ron Paul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=11735081</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The libertarian standard bearer trashes the Civil Rights Act]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong> </strong>Did the Civil Rights Act of 1964 put America on the path to a police state?  The answer is yes, according to Ron Paul, the Texas Republican Congressman and candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, Paul explained that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 “destroyed the principle of private property and private choices” and “undermine[d] the concept of liberty.”  The candidate drew a direct line from the Civil Rights Act to illiberal legislation passed in the panic that followed the 9/11 attacks:  “Look at what's happened with the PATRIOT Act. They can come into our houses, our bedrooms our businesses ... And <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/ron-paul-civil-rights-act_n_1178688.html">it was started back then</a>."</p><p><strong> </strong>By equating the Civil Rights Act, which expanded American civil liberty, with the Patriot Act, which reduced it, on the grounds that both are federal laws with sanctions, Ron Paul displays the moral idiocy of someone who declares that a person who pushes a little old lady out of the path of a bus is just as bad as a person who pushes a little old lady into the path of a bus, because both are equally guilty of pushing little old ladies around.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2012/01/03/race_liberty_and_ron_paul/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>493</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The age of turboparalysis</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/the_age_of_turboparalysis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/the_age_of_turboparalysis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Economy]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.origin.railrode.net/?p=10798661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The world faces years of ineffective rebellion and enduring recession]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If a neologism could capture the national and global politics of our time, in the way that “stagflation” captured the combination of stagnation and inflation in the economy of the 1970s, I would propose “turboparalysis” for the combination of vigorous and dramatic motion with the absence of steady movement in any particular direction.  At the level of the nation-state and the world as a whole, wheels are spinning furiously and engines are being gunned, to no effect.</p><p>Optimists are an endangered species, now that it appears that we are at best in the end of the beginning of a prolonged crisis of the world economy, not the beginning of the end.  Hopes that the global financial crash of 2008 would be followed by a deep recession and then a sharp recovery have faded.  Coordinated stimulus programs by major countries  in the early stages of the crisis probably helped to limit the damage, but they did not produce a recovery.  The alternatives — beggar-thy-neighbor trade policies and budgetary austerity — can only make things worse in the short run.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/the_age_of_turboparalysis/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2011/12/27/the_age_of_turboparalysis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>108</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

