As Ed Kilgore noted yesterday, the Washington Monthly is unique in its devotion to reviewing the latest books on politics, policy and public affairs. If politics is your passion—and if you’re reading this blog, I presume it is—then you really should be reading our reviews (expertly provided, I should add, by our book review editor—and my wife of 25 years—Kukula Glastris). In fact, calling them “reviews” often doesn’t do them justice—many are extensively reported essays and analytic pieces, and some of the best thinking and most delightful writing in the magazine can be found in them.

This past year, we published over two dozen reviews, on everything from the space program to the origins of the American Left. You’ll find links to a sampling below. If you already read our reviews, or if you take a look here and like what you see, I hope you’ll consider supporting us. We’re in the midst of our annual year-end fundraising drive, so click here and toss in a few bucks—$10, $20, $30, $50, whatever you can afford. Donations to the Monthly are tax-deductible—we’re a non-profit outfit, and really appreciate and rely on the help we get from readers to continue to do what we do.

Dumbing Down Darwin
Robert Frank’s effort to explain the lessons of evolution without offending libertarian sensibilities.
By James K. Galbraith

They Shall Reap the Whirlwind
How religious zealots in the Israeli government are supporting a new generation of extremist settlers who hate the Israeli government.
By Joshua Hammer

From William Lloyd Garrison to Barry Commoner
Why the left’s despair over Barack Obama has deep historical roots.
By Jacob Heilbrunn

Goodnight Moon
Will America ever escape the shadow of Apollo?
By Charles Homans

Tiller’s Killer
What the murder of a late-term abortion doctor does and does not say about the anti-choice movement.
By Ed Kilgore

Bangkok on the Nile
Middle East reformers would do well to study Thailand for lessons in how not to build a democracy.
By Joshua Kurlantzick

Valley Forged
Early American counterfeiters and their heirs on Wall Street.
By Jamie Malanowski

Justice Served
U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s thirty-five-year tenure was marked by intellectual rigor, lack of pretension, and the firm belief that absolutism had no place on the bench.
By Michael O’Donnell

The Great Terror
In his masterful new history, Timothy Snyder portrays Stalin’s and Hitler’s mass exterminations as flip sides of the same genocide—one that was both more horrible and less unique than we thought.
By Benjamin Wallace-Wells

It’s a campaign tactic that’s been around for a long while, but Mitt Romney seems eager to perfect it: identify the candidate’s most damaging flaws, then project those flaws onto the candidate’s rivals. This week offered a classic example.

Mitt Romney on Thursday sought to portray President Barack Obama as out of touch with the struggles of everyday Americans — a charge he himself has often faced — by comparing the president to a former French queen who was overthrown during the French Revolution.

“When the president’s characterization of our economy was, ‘It could be worse,’ it reminded me of Marie Antoinette: ‘Let them eat cake,’” Romney said, referring to the infamously dismissive remark toward the poor attributed to the queen.

As Jon Chait noted, this is “in keeping with his favorite method of deflecting attacks.”

Romney anticipates his greatest vulnerability, then peremptorily lobs the charge against his adversary. That way, when his opponent uses the charge it’s repetitive.

Romney first deployed this technique against New Gingrich. He has deployed a furious assault against what was briefly his chief adversary, painting him as a flip-flopper who has wavered on abortion and even supported health care reform in Massachusetts. Gingrich was left stammering helplessly in response. After sifting through the charges and counter-charges, all the Republican voters knew was that you had two candidates accusing each other of flip-flopping and trying to help sick people get health insurance. The natural next step is to open his general election campaign by portraying Obama as a callous aristocrat.

At this point, anything’s possible.

It takes quite a bit of chutzpah for any candidate to campaign this way. For crying out loud, Romney accused Gingrich of taking both sides of every issue and being an unreliable champion of far-right causes. How does one even intellectually process something like this? Is it the result of a pathological lack of self-awareness, an assumption that voters are idiots, the belief that the media is hopelessly incompetent, or some combination of all of them?

But this Marie Antoinette line is arguably even more beautiful. Romney — who, by the way, speaks fluent French and spent nearly three years in France — amassed an enormous fortune thanks to a vulture-capitalist firm known for breaking apart companies and firing their American workforces. Despite a quarter-billion in the bank, and several mansions (one of which he intends to quadruple in size), Romney is running on a campaign platform that includes slashing public investments that benefit working families (including the total elimination of funding for Planned Parenthood), massive tax breaks for the very wealthy, repealing safeguards that protect the public from Wall Street recklessness, and calling for more foreclosures on those American families struggling to keep their homes.

Two weeks ago, Romney told PBS he’d like to see President Obama stop criticizing “Wall Street” and “insurance company executives” altogether. Yesterday, he debated whether he meets the “classical” definition of “a Wall Street guy.”

Romney thinks it’s funny to joke about being unemployed; he finds it inconvenient when he doesn’t have anything smaller than a $100 bill in his wallet while on the campaign trail; he doesn’t blink when offering to make a $10,000 bet; and he considers a $1,500 a year tax cut for the typical middle-class family to be a meaningless “band aid.”

This guy wants to compare Barack Obama to Marie Antoinette?

If votes are awarded on the basis of audacity, Romney should go ahead and start drafting his inaugural address.

Update: A couple of emailers remind me that Romney also intends to repeal the Affordable Care Act, taking health coverage away from millions. “Let them eat cake,” indeed.

Conservatives’ antipathy towards the Girl Scouts has generally been found on the fringes. In 1994, for example, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family published a memorable attack on the Girl Scouts, insisting the group “lost their way” after the Scouts made a religious oath optional for membership. (For the religious right, faith shouldn’t be voluntary; it should be mandated on children by authority figures demanding vows of allegiance.)

I can’t find it online anymore, but back in 2005, Amanda Marcotte had a great item about various paranoid voices on the right, complaining about “radical lesbian feminists” having taken over the Girl Scouts.

In general, most of the American mainstream ignored all of this, and the Girl Scouts were not caught up in the right’s culture war. But just over the last few days, conservatives’ hostility seems to have reached new heights.

The right-wing media closed out 2011 by attacking the Girl Scouts of America for, in the words of Glenn Beck website The Blaze, publishing a book that “refers young readers to Media Matters for America as one of the primary sources for debunking lies and deceit.” Fox News led the charge, devoting more than 15 minutes over two days and three programs to the GSA’s “liberal ideology,” including its purported ties to Planned Parenthood.

It was a quite week for these attacks. The cast of “Fox & Friends” told viewers the Girl Scouts have a “liberal bias”; a co-host of Fox News’ “The Five” called the Girl Scouts’ book “indoctrination”; and CNN contributor Dana Loesch not only lamented the “moral decline” of the Girl Scouts, she also suggested conservatives should stop buying their cookies as a form of political protest.

Comedy Central responded with the appropriate derision.

Don’t be fooled by those cute little outfits or merit badges. The Girl Scouts aren’t just selling you a pack of cookies — they’re selling you a pack of lies, with a light coating of toasted coconut communism. Why do the Girl Scouts teach survival skills? It’s clearly an attempt to build some kind of liberal tween militia. Volunteering and “helping” others? Just another strategy to mobilize the working poor and other key Democratic voting blocs.

We need to shield our nation’s girls from this dangerous organization and stop them from drinking the Kool-Aid, no matter how well it washes down those Thin Mints.

This was, in case it’s not obvious, sarcasm.

Unfortunately, this story does not have a happy ending. In a statement, Girl Scouts of the USA confirmed this week that future editions of its materials will not refer readers to Media Matters.

The conservative freak-out appears to have worked.

Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry expressed some interest in Mitt Romney’s elusive tax returns last week, and the Democratic National Committee is trying to keep the story going this week.

For those who can’t watch clips online, it’s a 40-second video noting that every major Republican presidential candidate in the post-Watergate era — and if we go back a little further, this includes George Romney in 1968 — has released their tax records. Mitt Romney, at least for now, refuses.

In releasing the video, DNC National Press Secretary Melanie Roussell explained the likely rationale for Romney’s reluctance: “It would show that on the millions of dollars in income he enjoys each year, Mitt Romney pays a lower tax rate than teachers, fire fighters, police officers or other middle class wage earners. Mitt Romney will tell you that it’s not required by the law that he release his returns but when he’s advocating for policies that benefit the wealthy and the well-heeled, voters have a right to know what conflicts he might have with his own finances.”

Romney has, in fact, repeatedly told interviewers that he’s not “required by law” to release his returns. That’s true. The problem for Romney, though, is that every nominee from both parties did it anyway, not because it’s mandatory, but because they thought it was the right thing to do.

We can only speculate as to exactly why the former one-term governor is so reluctant, but it’s a pretty safe bet that Romney doesn’t want the public to know he pays a lower tax rate than middle-class workers. Because Romney still collects seven-figure checks from his vulture-capitalist firm, he benefits from the “carried interest” loophole, which taxes private equity and venture capital income at a lower, 15% rate, as compared to 35% on ordinary income.

As we discussed the other day, it creates a dynamic that Romney would prefer to downplay:

1. Mitt Romney is worth $250 million.

2. He got rich by laying off American workers.

3. He pays a lower tax rate than you and the rest of the middle class.

4. He wants to be president so he can keep it this way.

For what it’s worth, some in the media are beginning to find this interesting. (When presidential candidates start hiding things, it’s inevitable that reporters will get at least a little curious.) Yesterday Romney sat down with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell and, in response to several questions, said he’d “consider” releasing his tax returns “if I become president.” In other words, after the election Romney might do what every other modern candidate has done before the election.

Whether Romney’s preference for secrecy proves untenable remains to be seen, but my hunch is the longer he drags this out, the bigger the problem will become.

Last week, after a needlessly-contentious process, Congress approved a two-month extension of the payroll tax break. As part of the agreement, a conference committee will try to come up with an agreement to extend the cut through the end of 2012.

I’ve been rather pessimistic about the likelihood of success, and yesterday, the odds got worse.

The Senate Republican leader announced Friday that he had chosen three of his colleagues to try to thrash out a bipartisan deal on payroll taxes, unemployment benefits and Medicare.

The three Republican senators will join four Democratic senators and 13 House members on a conference committee wrestling with the issues, which tied the Senate in knots for more than two months.

The newly named Republican conferees are Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona, Michael D. Crapo of Idaho and John Barrasso of Wyoming.

These aren’t three senators you’d appoint to a conference committee if you want to be constructive. These are three senators you’d appoint to a conference committee if you want to be destructive.

Kyl, for example, was instrumental in sabotaging the super-committee process, and was described by Democratic negotiators as “walking napalm.” Crapo and Barrasso, meanwhile, are two far-right senators who’ve never demonstrated any willingness to accept concessions on anything.

What’s more, note that the House GOP leadership has already announced its conferees, most of whom have already said they don’t want a payroll-cut extension no matter what concessions Democrats are willing to make.

The conference committee will technically have until March 1, when the cut expires, but as a practical matter, they’ll have to wrap up a deal well before then, giving both chambers a chance to debate and vote on an agreement.

Of course, the likelihood of there even being an agreement now borders on fanciful. Republican participants won’t be willing to compromise, and most of them don’t fear failure since they oppose tax breaks for the middle class on principle.

What about the risk of being blamed? Remember, as far as GOP leaders are concerned, the process itself offers cover. Instead of last week, when House Republicans became the clear villains, when the conference committee struggles to come up with a bipartisan solution, the party will find it easier to spread the blame around.

“It’s not our fault,” GOP leaders will say. “We tried to work with Democrats on a deal, but one didn’t come together. Oh well.”

For Republicans, it’s the best of all possible worlds: middle-class taxes would go up, the economy would take a hit, public disgust for Washington would be renewed, and the media would feel obligated to say “both sides” failed to reach an agreement.

First up from the God Machine this week is a fascinating church-state conflict in Illinois, where a major Roman Catholic charity wants to be able to accept taxpayer funds while discriminating against some taxpayers.

Catholic Charities in Illinois has served for more than 40 years as a major link in the state’s social service network for poor and neglected children. But now most of the Catholic Charities affiliates in Illinois are closing down rather than comply with a new requirement that says they can no longer receive state money if they turn away same-sex couples as potential foster care and adoptive parents.

For the nation’s Roman Catholic bishops, the outcome is a prime example of what they see as an escalating campaign by the government to trample on their religious freedom while expanding the rights of gay people. The idea that religious Americans are now the victims of government-backed persecution is now a frequent theme not just for Catholic bishops, but also for Republican presidential candidates and conservative evangelicals.

Public contracts with Catholic Charities have been common for decades, and they’ve been deemed legally permissible precisely because of their secular nature — the faith-based organization receives funds to provide a valuable public service, but it does so in a way that’s distinct from the church’s religious agenda. Catholic Charities, like other religious charities, have been willing to accept some strings with the tax dollars: no proselytizing, separate accounting that’s subject to public audits, etc.

But some states are now adding additional strings — these charities that receive taxpayer money now can’t discriminate against LGBT taxpayers. And for Catholic Charities in Illinois, that’s apparently a bridge too far. The group wants to help families, but not if it means helping gay families.

From Catholic Charities’ perspective, it’s facing some degree of discrimination. As the argument goes, Catholic Charities should be able to accept public tax dollars to perform a public service, and be able to discriminate against members of the public the organization doesn’t like. The fact that Illinois officials disagree is, in Catholic Charities’ mind, some kind of persecution in which state government is trying to force the faith-based institution to change its moral standards.

It’s awfully tough to take this argument seriously. Indeed, when the group’s lawyers sued Illinois, the case failed miserably.

Jay Bookman had a good piece explaining just how misguided Catholic Charities’ argument is: “It is not persecution to be held to the standards that are applied to every other contractor that does business with the state. To the contrary, the church is demanding ‘special rights’ to violate the law and to use taxpayers’ money to do so. It’s akin to some church or social agency taking state money to run soup kitchens to feed the poor, but demanding the right to deny aid to black people or Hispanics. The church, using its own funds, would have every right to refuse to assist in gay adoptions. The First Amendment gives it that protection. But by accepting taxpayer dollars, it accepts the conditions that come with it.”

Scott Wooledge added, “[I]n many jurisdictions, the Church could continue to fund discriminatory foster care and adoption services if the Church wished, just not subsidized by taxpayers. The Church would have to offer these services supported only by its own money.” Catholic Charities has so far refused, relying on 97% of its budget from outside the churches in the diocese.

Let’s also not forget that some faith-based charities are working with states on this rather than abandoning those in need. Missouri Synod does not sanction same-sex relationships, but Lutheran Child and Family Services of Illinois has decided to continue to help children, despite the state’s new rules.

Also from the God Machine this week:

* Fox Latin America ran an online poll on its Facebook page this week, asking readers who they think was responsible for killing Jesus: Pontius Pilate, The Jewish People or the High Priests. Fox later apologized.

* It took 1,500 years, but the Talmud now has an accessible index. (thanks to R.P.)

* And in his Christmas Eve homily, Pope Benedict XVI urged worshippers to “see through the superficial glitter of this season.” I have a hunch that’s a losing battle. (thanks to V.S.)

Crying has come a long way in politics. In 1972, Ed Muskie wept outside the offices of New Hampshire’s Union Leader, and it was, at the time, a political disaster. Americans were apparently uncomfortable with adults in leadership positions emoting like this in public.

Attitudes have clearly changed. John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) frequent crying didn’t stop him from becoming Speaker of the House, and Hillary Clinton thrived in the New Hampshire primary four years ago after getting choked up. And yesterday, disgraced former House Speaker Newt Gingrich showed far more emotion than we’re generally accustomed to seeing from him.

Newt Gingrich openly cried on Friday morning during an event with a group of mothers in an Iowa coffee shop as he described his own mother’s illness.

The Republican pollster Frank Luntz had asked Mr. Gingrich to recall a moment with his mother that changed his life. Mr. Gingrich started to describe the illness at the end of her life, when she struggled with depression and bipolar disease…. The tears immediately started flowing.

The episode was a break in character for Mr. Gingrich, who usually projects a nothing-bothers-me attitude…. Mr. Gingrich wiped tears from his eyes for several minutes as he described the lessons he learned from his mother and what he would say to her if she were in Iowa.

If you haven’t already seen it, here’s a clip, by way of TPM.

I’m generally surprised this doesn’t happen more often. These candidates are enduring a grueling process with very little sleep, poor nutrition, and intense, constant pressure. They are understandably exhausted, and it stands to reason that presidential hopefuls, especially when talking about personal and family matters, will occasionally be less then composed.

What seems noteworthy about Gingrich’s display yesterday isn’t the candidate’s emotions, but rather, the media’s reactions to them. Or more to the point, how different the reactions have been to Hillary Clinton getting choked up in early 2008. You’ll recall that the coverage was generally quite negative — ABC News ran a report, for example, asking, “Can Clinton’s Emotions Get the Best of Her?” John Edwards, a Clinton rival at the time, took a cheap shot, telling reporters, “I think what we need in a commander in chief is strength and resolve, and presidential campaigns are a tough business, but being president of the United States is also a very tough business,” with the implication that Clinton’s tears proved she wasn’t up for the job.

Notice the extent to which Gingrich isn’t facing similar pushback.

It was good to have a few days away from the blog, but I’m back and ready to go.

I want to thank the always-terrific Ed Kilgore for his fantastic work in my absence — I clearly left Political Animal in capable hands — and I encourage readers to check out his work wherever it appears. You can find Ed at The Democratic Strategist, where he’s the managing editor, as well as The New Republic and Salon, where he contributes regularly.

In terms of housekeeping, it’s obviously a holiday weekend, and at this point, I’m largely inclined to play it by ear when it comes to scheduling. That said, I plan to treat today like a normal Saturday — I’ll probably have a half-dozen or so posts, including “This Week in God” — and will have additional content tomorrow.

And with that, let’s get back to the news.

Well, as Dick Cheney would say, it’s time to go, and after 34 posts, I’m not waiting til New Year’s Eve to have a sip of something cold and fermented.

Thanks to Paul for inviting me here; thanks to Steve for turning over the keys; and thanks to the rest of the Monthly crew for keeping my feet more or less on the path of righteousness.

Most of all, thank to those faithful Political Animal readers who ignored their holiday presents and bowl games and New Year’s Resolution drafting to hang in there with me and drink the bitter dregs of 2011. Happy New Year to all.

As we head into the holiday weekend, I doubt a lot of people are hungry for one more dollop of political news (shame on you!) but traditions are traditions, so here’s a final mini-report:

* Romney and Perry Squabble Over Definition of “Wall Street”: Talk about the Slippery leading the Blind! And what’s with Perry being critical of “wealth-creators” anyway?

* Santorum Hits Perry For Ignorance About Sodomy: Santorum’s truly The Name on sodomy.

* Romney Wins the Murdoch Primary: So says Josh Marshall, and he’s watched enough Fox News to derange someone with less stamina.

* Tea Folk, Christian Right Remain Divided on Candidates: That’s Ron Brownstein’s conclusion after staring at the latest NBC/Marist poll. Ron’s long been arguing that Romney’s consolidation of non-Tea, secular Republicans has outpaced his weakness among more right-wing segments of the party.

* White House Decides Against Requesting Debt Limit Hike Before New Year: This is good news to all of us who’d like to end the year without hearing the words “debt limit” one more time.

* Newt Weeps: He’s got a lot to weep about.

* Reporters Outnumber Voters At Two Bachmann Stops in Iowa: But Bachmann’s old buddy Steve King did show up, and failed to endorse her one last time. Hard to feel sorry for her, but man, that’s cold!

* Krugman Concludes Keynes Was Right After All: But what does he know, other than economics and stuff like that?

Selah.

[Note: I’ve read and do appreciate the valedictory comments already filed after my last post, but God help me, I’ve written some more during the hiaitus after the daily post devoted to raising money to support the place. So bear with me a bit longer; you know you’d be disappointed if I didn’t get within shouting distance of Steve’s productivity!]

Now that we’re all being forced, at least for a bit, to take Ron Paul somewhat seriously as a presidential candidate, the Doctor is rapidly discovering the downside of a long career marching through the fever swamps of extremist politics.

I’m sure most readers have heard about the racist and homophobic comments in his newsletters, which his campaign is blaming on ghostwriters. Now it transpires that Paul had some pretty controversial stuff to say in a book he published over his own, un-shared byline back when he was about to run for president as a Libertarian (and then re-published in 2007 before his last presidential run), according to CNN’s Peter Hamby:

In his 1987 manifesto “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs….

Paul’s campaign manager Jesse Benton defended the book and said the candidate “has been speaking out for decades that rights do not come from belonging to a group.”

“Rights come because we are all individuals, endowed by our creator, and Americans must look beyond race or creed and recognize that we all deserving of the same Liberty,” Benton told CNN in an email. “This truth is a tenant of natural law and the only way we will achieve a color blind and truly free society.”

The vigorous pushback from Paul’s campaign probably reflects the fact that an awful lot of Republican caucus and primary voters have zero problems with the views expressed in the book. Certainly the idea that anti-discrimination laws are a violation of “natural law” is the kind of thing you hear in Tea Party/Christian Right circles, where “natural law” is regularly equated with “divine law” to condemn anything the self-righteous oppose.

So the ongoing ghosts in Ron Paul’s record probably won’t much affect his immediate prospects—certainly no more and probably less than his recent remarks on Iran which his opponents are shouting about all over Iowa.

Paul’s real problem in the long run is that because the GOP has moved so rapidly in his direction on monetary policy and the ideal size of the federal government, he seems to think it will now move in his direction on everything. So no wonder he’s not too worried about his past, which he and his devoted minions thinks is their party’s and country’s future.

Here at the Washington Monthly, our cardinal mission is to help you see the clockwork of government, politics, and public life more clearly. But we also have another big calling: minting great editors and writers and sending them out into the world. Over the course of its 40 years, the Monthly has launched the careers of an uncanny number of the nation’s best journalists. Here are some choice words from just a tiny few of our former staffers (if you heard from all of them, we’d be here awhile):

“Most of the good things I’ve learned about journalism I learned at the Washington Monthly. And only a few of the bad! Under Charlie Peters and now Paul Glastris, the Washington Monthly has been an indispensable institution for explaining public life and training young journalists how to do so.” — James Fallows, national correspondent at The Atlantic, former speechwriter for Jimmy Carter.

“The Washington Monthly is an indispensable source on what’s really going on in the American political system: passionate, knowledgable, intellectually honest, and interested in the real story of how this society is governed, not the shouting and spin.” — Nicholas Lemann, staff writer at the New Yorker and dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.

“The Washington Monthly tackles the Beltway from a rare, arguably unique, perspective: clear-eyed enough to explain how government really works yet idealistic enough to keep fighting for how it should work.” — Michelle Cottle, senior editor at The New Republic and Washington reporter for the Daily Beast.

“The Washington Monthly teaches a desperately needed lesson for a cynical era. It reminds us that to uphold and refine free government is the core challenge of American patriotism.” — Taylor Branch, Pulitzer prize-winning author of America in the King Years and >The Clinton Tapes.

“Policy journalism is better than it’s ever been in Washington, and that state of affairs owes a great deal to the Washington Monthly—a magazine that was teaching young beltway journalists to care more about CBO charts than sex scandals before most of today’s bloggers were even born.” —Charles Homans, special correspondent for The New Republic.

That’s right: if you value policy reportage in particular and serious journalism in general, you should support the Washington Monthly! You could help launch the career of the next Jonathan Alter, Katherine Boo, Gregg Easterbrook, James Bennett, Benjamin Wallace-Wells, Nicholas Confessore, Joshua Green, Jason DeParle… you get the idea. At the very least, you’ll support the daily dose of fresh thinking you get from this blog and the deep, clear thinking we aim to provide consistently in the magazine. We’re in the midst of our annual year-end fundraising drive, so click here and toss in a few bucks—$10, $20, $30, $50, whatever you can afford. Donations to the Monthly are tax-deductible—we’re a non-profit outfit, and really appreciate and rely on the help we get from readers to continue to do what we do.

It’s traditional at this time of year to write thoughtful reviews of the events of the last twelve months, particularly among those of us who don’t have the week off and don’t have a lot of news to write about. But you know what? Having lived through this tense and exhausting year, I just don’t feel up to any BigThink about its place in the grand sweep of American or world history. Maybe that will change when 2011 is finally receding in the rear-view window and I can muster some optimism about 2012.

Personally, I’ve spent most of this last year obsessively writing about the Republican presidential nominating contest. In part that’s because this was my “beat” for The New Republic and the Progressive Policy Institute, but also because I have long been convinced that the craziness of today’s GOP provides the only hope for Barack Obama’s re-election, and thus the tale of the primary battle may well be the tale of the entire cycle. The “invisible primary” that will end next Tuesday has taught us nearly as much about the pathologies of the contemporary Right as the behavior of congressional Republicans. The GOP—not just the Tea Party movement, but pretty much the entire party—is caught in the grip of multiples delusions, including a neo-Hooverism that is hard to take seriously as economic policy, and political theories that defy everything we know about the views of the American people.

It is fashionable, and occasionally useful, to focus on the political strategies of the Obama White House and blame them for the catastrophe that could occur next November. But the sad truth is we won’t really know how smart or stupid the president’s team has been until much later in the cycle; they are playing a long, long game, and it’s unclear where it will eventually lead.

Did anything really new and positive happen this year? We don’t know yet what’s going to happen next to the economy—or at least I have little idea. The state-level battles in Wisconsin and Ohio were quite promising, if only because they showed the labor movement still has some serious fight in it even when other progressives despair. And though I’m ambivalent about the staying power of the Occupy movement, there is zero question it has forced Americans—and not just Americans—think about the concentrations of wealth that have been the overriding economic trend throughout the last decade, long before the recent financial collapse.

All in all, it was a transitional year, but we don’t really know what we are transitioning towards. So raise a glass on New Year’s Eve to your hopes for better times—and give your fears a holiday.

Earlier today, a commenter named “low-tech cyclist” posted this query:

There used to be a well-known Dem named Ed Kilgore who was a centrist, third-way, triangulating, DLC sort of guy.

I’m having a hard time squaring that Ed Kilgore with this guy who’s been writing some very good pull-no-punches stuff while pinch-hitting for Steve for the past few days. But rumor has it they’re the same guy.

There must be a story here, and I’m curious as to what it is.

I still get this a lot, so let me explain.

Contrary to the stereotypes out there, the DLC, where I did indeed work until a few years ago, was by no means averse to “pull-no-punches stuff.” Back in 1999 I wrote, for the DLC’s magazine, one of the first take-downs of “compassionate conservatism” and warned that W.’s touchy-feely stuff was a ruse. I also repetitively wrote, for the DLC, some of the most savage attacks imaginable on the Bush tax cuts. During the 2004 cycle, Bruce Reed and I regularly wrote incredibly nasty stuff about Bush and his party. I could go on and on, but you get the point.

I by no means ignore or excuse some of the stuff the DLC said and published about the Iraq War (where there was a lot less internal agreement than you might imagine) and those perceived as intra-party foes (though Lord knows the demonization of the DLC itself often got out of hand), though I did very little of either myself. We were all far too enthusiastic about the New Economy, and I regret that a lot. But we did a lot of good analysis of the terrible trends in the GOP and the conservative movement, and published an awful lot of good progressive policy work (much of it through the DLC’s think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, which still thrives and with which I am still affiliated, writing a weekly column called “Wingnut Watch”).

I wasn’t necessarily the typical DLCer; for one thing, I was always friendly with the blogosphere (one of my strangest duties was to accompany Markos Moulitsas to a DLC annual meeting, and also accompanied then-chairman Harold Ford to a Yearly Kos meeting). But that’s kinda the point: it was a far less monolithic institution than its detractors typically thought. As a heavy provider of daily content for the DLC web-page, I was never told or even asked to write anything at the behest of those sinister corporate donors we supposedly served—and whom we actually lost regularly for taking positions they didn’t like—and like most people there, was mainly interested in the success of the Democratic Party. I was particularly proud of the work we did—which got virtually no attention—with helping state and local elected officials and battling the nefarious influence of ALEC, a rare thing among national Democratic groups then and even now.

I finally parted ways with the DLC in part because of growing differences of opinion with its leadership, but I’m certainly not ashamed of having worked there. My thoughts on its ultimate legacy can be found in a “requiem” I wrote for TNR after the DLC finally closed its doors last winter.

Hope that answers “low-tech cyclist,” and anyone else interested in this increasingly ancient history.