Author Archives: PB Goodfriend
“We will fight, and we will win!”
– Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), July 18, 2014
Fighting the tyranny of an oligarchy that withholds the existential needs of its people in an effort to subjugate them is the act of a rebel. Fighting for the change that leaves the members of a society empowered and self determined is the act of a revolutionary. Both rebel and revolutionary are heroically selfless in their sacrifice, but it is the revolutionary who makes it possible for the changes sought by the rebel to become an unshakeable part of the social psyche.
The need to create change, to keep trying to get this experiment that is the United States right, is an essential part of being an American. “Stamped into the DNA of every American citizen, is a healthy skepticism for orthodoxy,” Vice President Joe Biden told the annual gathering of progressive activists and bloggers, Netroots Nation, in Detroit, Thursday, as he related the story of a conversation he had with Malaysian leader Lee Kwan Yew about what makes our country so resilient. We are not only willing to change; we are constantly finding new ways to affect change, so we can grow.
After all, our Constitution was laid out “in order to form a more perfect union,” which means, to me, that we will never have the “perfect” union, just one we will always be striving to make better.
Detroit is an appropriate town for the vice president to continue the conversation for change because it’s a city where hope is what people scratch and claw for, and have for a century. Detroit, you see, is a city of fighters. It’s the birthplace of the American labor movement, and also the city of heavyweight champion, Joe Louis, fiery civil rights activist, Malcolm X, and socio-political philosopher and activist, Grace Lee Boggs.
Boggs showed up at Netroots early Thursday, for a screening of the documentary about her life, American Revolutionary: The Evolution of Grace Lee Boggs. At 98 years old, she is still an ideas driven firebrand, committed to a cultural shift. “We are on the verge of a change as big as when humans stopped being hunter/gatherers and moved to agriculture,” she told those gathered to watch the movie. “We are moving into a post industrial epoch.”
Joe Biden agrees. “We are at an inflection point, where things change in a significant way,” he said. “We are at an inflection point of national and world history.”
This is a time when we can control the direction of human destiny, if only for a little bit of time. This is what a life is for. This is our purpose, and, as Americans, Biden said, “We hold the wheel,” adding “This is one of those moments, the few times in our history, that people can bend history just a little bit.”
What this is, if Biden and Boggs are to be believed, is a rare opportunity for self-determination to control our own evolution. That has been Grace Lee Boggs’ philosophy for decades – before you have revolution, you must have evolution.
In her book, The Next American Revolution, Sustainable Activism for the Twenty-First Century, she wrote:
“All over the world, local groups are struggling, as we are in Detroit, to keep our communities, our environment and our humanity from being destroyed by corporate globalization…
“[Those who are part of this movement] are joined at the heart by their commitment to achieving social justice, establishing new forms of democratic governance, and creating new ways of living at the local level that will reconnect us with the Earth, and with one another…
“Millions of people in the United States are part of this organically evolving cultural revolution.”
For Boggs, the greatness of her city is not the unlikely reassertion of the automotive industry that built it. That’s gone, she said, and therein lies the possibility of something great and new. “A place where justice and fairness reign supreme,” is how one of the Netroots participants, Diane Matsumoto, a Detroit native who now lives in North Carolina, put it.
Matsumoto sees the squeeze Governor Snyder’s emergency manager is putting on the town’s citizens, particularly regarding the inhumane withholding of water in the summertime, as creating a space where activism creates opportunity, which creates more activism. “The roots of Detroit is getting its legs back,” she said, “and maybe it takes us all being taken to our knees to remember where we came from.”
She said having awareness raised about the issues in Detroit will, like a car coming off the assembly line, roll out to the rest of the country. The city is, she said, “the canary in the coal mine” of the American middle class, and while she was heartened by the attention the Netroots crowd was bringing to the water issue, she said it’s only the beginning. “It doesn’t matter if there’s more of us [than there are of them], if we sit our ass on the couch eating bonbons. Now is the time,” she said, “we join the fight.”
Maybe this time, the cultural evolution we seek will finally lead to a permanent, stable and sustainable revolution.
It is now becoming apparent that Senator Thad Cochran and his supporters used political savvy to rally some Democratic voters to come out and vote for him, last Tuesday. We like to think our politics are pure, that any movement for a candidate is grassroots, driven by a concerned citizenry wanting to ensure they are represented by someone who will listen to their requests and act, someone who will take care of their needs.
We know the reality is more complex, that the most successful campaigns employ algorithm-driven get-out-the-vote tools and techniques (Obama), that they use reverse psychology to face a beatable candidate (McCaskill), and now, that they use direct appeal through operatives with whom they may have nothing in common to save them from certain defeat (Cochran).
According to Jim Galloway, a political columnist for the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
“Late campaign disclosure documents filed in the race show that Mississippi Conservatives, a political action committee run by the son of that state’s former governor, Haley Barbour, paid tens of thousands of dollars to get-out-the-vote artist Mitzi Bickers, an African-American pastor and former president of the Atlanta school board.”
Because it was a PAC that hired Bickers’ consulting firm, the Bickers Group, there is no direct connection to the Cochran campaign, so if her actions, which are believed to be two robo-calls, are the “irregularities” Cochran’s opponent, Chris McDaniel, was referring to in his defiant, non-concession speech, then he has no case against the six-term incumbent.
What the Barbours did, in support of Cochran, was recognize that Republican idealists would vote for McDaniel, but pragmatists would vote for Cochran, and Haley, Henry, et al., are nothing if not political pragmatists.
That hyper-awareness of the facts on the ground is also something red state Democrats might want to consider in particularly tight races, where they actually stand a chance. Tacking to the political center might help you get votes from the center, but it will not help with siphoning votes from the right. You may not necessarily want to be their voice, but you probably need their vote. This opens the campaign on three fronts: assure the partisans that you are with them; assure the middle that you are not an extremist, and; inform the right that it’s better for them and their community if they vote for you. Of course getting all your targeted voters to actually vote is the biggest stumbling block, one that researchers say, if successful, would have resulted in a very different political dynamic in red states, and in Washington, DC.
If Republicans and Democrats have no problem reaching across party lines to campaign, perhaps, then, they would be willing to reach across the aisle more in Congress. Thad Cochran is as socially conservative a senator as they come, but if he gives back to the Mississippi Democrats who helped him hold his seat, by helping where the people in the poorest state in the country need it most, then we may have a new recipe for leadership, from a very old politician.
“We conclude that the Recess Appointments Clause does not give the President the constitutional authority to make the appointments here at issue.” – Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority opinion in the unanimous finding of N.L.R.B. v Canning, issued 26 June, 2014
“The Constitution makes it clear that a president’s job is to faithfully execute the laws. In my view, the president has not faithfully executed the laws.” – Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-Ohio) announcing to the press his intention to get Congress to sue President Obama for not following his oath of office
There’s blood in the water fountain on the North Lawn of the White House. Phrases like “constitutional authority” and “not faithfully executed” cast a shadow of doubt in the minds of the undiscerning, over the integrity of the president they elected to office, twice. The question is whether the Supreme Court and House Speaker John Boehner are inflicting a thousand tiny cuts or whether it’s a self inflicted mortal wound cut by the knife of good intention.
How the administration responds to these slings and arrows of misfortune is important, not only for President Obama, but also for the Democrats who hope to succeed him. With his popularity numbers hovering around 40 percent, and a public perception of disregard for the rules of power, the meme that asks “Do you want another four years of the kind of governing we saw under Obama,” is going to make any Democratic candidate’s push to the 2016 election difficult, especially those who have no buffer from the actions of the administration, like Vice President Joe Biden and the favored, former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.
The irony is obvious, since Obama argued, in 2008, that electing a Republican was tantamount to endorsing another four years of the horrid policies of Bush and Cheney. “Senator McCain likes to talk about judgment,” he said of his opponent on the night he accepted his party’s nomination in Denver, “but really, what does it say about your judgment when you think George Bush was right more than 90 percent of the time?” And he continued to refer to the failed foreign and domestic policies of George W. Bush as “Bush-McCain” policies.
It really won’t matter if Boehner’s lawsuit will likely not be resolved until after Obama is out of office. It really won’t matter that Biden and Clinton aren’t Obama, and neither are Martin O’Malley, Brian Schweitzer or Andrew Cuomo. The Republicans will hold up a thin allegation of abuse of power and call it a telephone book, and hang it on the neck of whoever the Democrats nominate.
How the president publicly responds to not only Boehner’s partisan gimmickry, but more importantly, to the Supreme Court setbacks (which include wounds from two of his own appointees), is critical. He has a little more room to be defensive with Boehner – “What I’ve told Speaker Boehner directly is, ‘If you’re really concerned about me taking too many executive actions, why don’t you try getting something done through Congress?'” he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Friday – but cannot be dismissive, or even appear to be dismissive, of either one. If he doesn’t find some way to appear contrite but not chastened, his legacy will not just be the end of two wars and a health care bill. It will be facing the challenge of an intransigent Congress and finding workarounds so distasteful that it sours the public on the leadership style of the entire party.
“I think Washington in general is unpopular, the president and congress, because we seem dysfunctional and we are dysfunctional.” – Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), on NBC’s Meet the Press, Sunday, June 22, 2014
In the American experience, our country’s forebearers have left us a legacy of knowing who and what we are against. From religious persecution to the British, from slavery to Jim Crow, we fight. That is our story. We find purpose in the fight, so we agree on very little and the few policies where we find consensus are devoured by the vermin that infect the political beast. Just ask deposed House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) what it’s like to wake up with the fleas with whom you’ve gone to bed, crawling under your skin.
The Republicans like to draw a picture of Obama being the extreme, and then there’s everyone else, or as John Boehner likes to call them, “the American people.” (Someone should to a count of how many times the Speaker uses that phrase when he actually means the Republican base, but I guess they’re American people, too – just not all the American people.) Inside the current dynamics of his party, that may be true.
“We are now operating in the Obama Republican Party,” Jon Lerner, a Republican consultant, admitted to the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, recently. “Obama’s lurch to the left on size-of-government issues has created an aggressive Republican reaction…”
That is, of course, an oversimplification. Lerner makes it sound like there’s been some line in the sand that’s been crossed and the GOP are holding a united line, because Obama stands against everything they believe. But it may be less a matter of political conviction and more a matter of political fear. In reality, what it’s done is made it harder for more moderate, consensus capable Republicans from speaking out, lest they too be Cantor-ed. Republicans, especially in red states, say what they have to for their own political survival, sometimes in a not so subtle course reversal, like Louisiana Governor [and 2016 presidential hopeful] Bobby Jindal (R) using his executive authority to disengage his state from its commitment to Common Core educational standards.
The truth for the GOP is that they embraced the Tea Party appropriated Gadsden flag snake because they thought it would make them more powerful, that their establishment brand conservatism was enough to control it, like a faithful West Virginia snake handling preacher. Instead, it continues to bite them, and the party faithful label the poisoned politician a poser, and not a real conservative at all.
The serpent juggling disunity only makes the Republicans a more dangerous counter to the president, albeit a less cohesive one. Assuming that Lerner is correct in how united the GOP is against President Obama and the Democrats, it’s difficult to see a way this national disunity leaves our union strong.
President Obama recognized some of the pettiness in this obstructionism during his last election, in an interview with MSNBC. He said that while “there are a whole range of issues, I think, where we can actually bring the country together, with a non-ideological agenda, the question’s going to be: How do Republicans react in Congress post-election? Because there’s going to be a war going on inside that party. It just hasn’t broken out. It’s been unified, in opposition to me.”
We all know that despite the president’s pre-election optimism, that dynamic did not change.
Yet, there are fundamentals over which the hypocrisy of our history break to one side, when unity thrives and there is a clear understanding of what it means to be an American. That is when we demonstrate a consensus of tolerance and concern, of fairness and equal opportunity. After all, fifty years ago last week, Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act into law. I believe the river of idealism that brought us to that moment still runs below the ugly asphalt surface with which we have chosen to pave our politics and our personal relationships.
Our Twentieth Century successes, as a global partner in war and a global leader in business, standing (mostly) shoulder to shoulder against the injustices of racism and bigotry and poverty, have spoiled us with unsustainable expectations of inevitable American greatness. Now, with wagging fingers and tisk-tisking lips creating the perception of fading American glory, we blame those with whom we have profound disagreements, even about what made us great in the first place. Setting aside for a moment that the “glory” itself could be a pure Yankee Doodle, hubris infused, false reality, we have to examine whether we are truly fading into the upstage shadows, or growing, finding new ways to transform into a more robust, sustainable republic, a truly bright city on the hill.
It’s easy to poke at Dick Cheney’s chutzpah (or cojones, depending on which corner of the country you are from) when he says, regarding Obama’s loathing of military conflict, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many.”
But this is not just a nation of hawks and doves, or bullies and peons, or makers and takers. I don’t know anyone who self identifies as any of those. We describe our nation as great because we know how to fight and we know how to thrive in peace. We can lose – and have lost – wars, and still win as a country. When we lose, it’s when we abandon peaceful principles to pursue a vengeful agenda, like the Bush/Cheney decision to invade Iraq.
Simply coming up with justification of a cause does not make a cause just. A sixteen-year-old can tell you why he just had to answer a text and ended up crashing the car, but that doesn’t mean he was right to do it. Indeed, in our representative government, we should be the parents disciplining our petulant government as to what is and is not justifiable. Instead, we long ago abdicated our responsibility for shepherding fair and just government outcomes to greedy politicians and Wall Street bankers, with predictable results. Now they see us as the incorrigible children – ignorant, rebellious and bothersome.
We still are not through with this cycle of dysfunctional governance enabled by a contentious electorate. But in order
to remove the chocks from the wheels of government and let it fly, we have to work together. We can’t all be the pilot, but by letting go of absolutes, we can come to an agreement on the heading. Despite all our differences and what and who we are against, wise, patient folks can come together and be unified, even imperfectly, on what we stand for as a people. That is what made us great in the first place, in Philadelphia, in 1776, and everywhere since, when we have stood together as brothers and sisters, committed to a more tolerant world and a more perfect, fair and equal nation.
What do you have to let go of to make that happen?
“[T]he United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. That has been true for the century passed and it will be true for the century to come.”
-President Barack Obama, addressing the United States Military Academy commencement ceremony, May 28,2014
Just because we start seeing the world without looking at it through a lens of war doesn’t mean we have stopped loving it. Rather, our relationship has grown. Its nature has changed. It is time to let the world finish its rebellion against our authority, presumed or actual, and let it go, let it fly.
“But the world is changing with accelerating speed.”
Perhaps President Obama’s recent declarations about our changing military role is a correlation to having two growing daughters, getting closer to leaving the nest and living on their own. Maybe he’s just trying to get us all to see, it’s time to release our young, and, if we have raised them right, watch them soar.
“The question we face, the question each of you will face, is not whether America will lead, but how we will lead — not just to secure our peace and prosperity, but also extend peace and prosperity around the globe.”
We never asked to be the world’s parental nest. We never asked. But we had the most money, the most successful populace with a laissez faire attitude about world affairs, and the biggest fist, the strongest hammer. Yet, as President Obama said at the West Point graduation, last week, “Just because we have the best hammer does not mean that every problem is a nail.”
“[T]o say that we have an interest in pursuing peace and freedom beyond our borders is not to say that every problem has a military solution.”
There is difficulty in letting go of power, but there is greater difficulty in using it in unwelcome ways, like missile firing drones and monitored cellphones. If we want to have a relationship with the world, we must allow that relationship to evolve. Once we have stopped being the heavy hand with the rest of the planet, we can be the tender touch to nurture, from the strength of knowing how to get things done, what a free world creates.
That won’t be easy, mostly because the time of the United States being trusted to get things done was pretty much relegated to myth, ever since Colin Powell wagged a vial of Saddam’s “imminent threat” (which was neither a threat, nor was it imminent) at the United Nations Security Council in 2003. It was the legend with which we boastfully imbued ourselves for half a century, coming out on the winning side of two world wars (the last of which resulted in veterans actually being taken care of), propped up by Hollywood and exploited by politicians. Whether it was ever true after the 1970s is arguable. The only thing that kept it alive that long was the legacy of a strong middle class, supported by good union jobs and high taxes.
When the basis of your vision for America as the “greatest country on Earth” is rooted in soil that’s been dead for decades, you have to find a plot on a nearby field and plant anew, before the drying, prideful stalk on which we now find ourselves turns to dust.
Not talking revolution. This is a progressive evolution.
And it won’t happen with the current DC dynamic – an intransigent Congress that views any military disengagement as weakness, any unilateral action taken by the executive branch to ease tensions between us and our enemies (and to rescue American soldiers) as an unconstitutional power grab, and a chief executive doing whatever the law allows to satisfy those of us who voted for him (twice), as he tries to reconcile his legacy with the Nobel Prize he won when his administration began.
But it will happen.
In spite of decades of screw-ups on the international stage, we know how to come together to build something. It’s in our DNA, part of the nature of our republic. We can step back without stepping aside, and bring compromise and consensus back to Washington. But it will require true democracy to prevail, rather than the one bought by billionaires and run by millionaires. For that to happen, we have to commit to sowing the real grassroots, so roll up your sleeves and bring your shovel. This is going to be hard work.
Here’s the thing about being post racial. If you have to announce to the world that you are no longer a racist, then you almost certainly still are.
It brings to mind the essential catch in Joseph Heller’s amazing novel about the insanity of military discipline in a time of war, Catch 22 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1961):
“There was only one catch and that was Catch-22… Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn’t, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn’t have to; but if he didn’t want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
“‘That’s some catch, that Catch-22,’ he observed.”
Indeed, it is. Granted, the army may give you less leeway with your thoughts than your own conscience does, but that just means the responsibility is yours. You are your own chain of command.
As embattled NBA owner Donald Sterling will tell you, you can say you respect the players, you can say you respect one of the most beloved players in NBA history, Ervin “Magic” Johnson, but if you are saying it in an effort to disavow overtly racist statements, you’re still a racist. You’re just pretending you’re shocked by the charge. You may as well say, “Some of my best friends are n—–s,” because whether you think of them that way or not, the fact that you have to point out how tolerant you are shows you are as disconnected from your own honest feelings as you are from society’s.
Racism will die, as Haile Selassie said, in a 1963 speech to the United Nations, when “the philosophy that holds one race superior and another inferior is finally and totally discredited and abandoned.” It can be argued that, for a majority of Americans, it has at least been “discredited.” That goes for all races, one to another, all religions, one to another, all genders, one to another, all sexual orientations, one to another.
As for Sterling, rather than going to Barbara Walters and Anderson Cooper to plead for forgiveness and ask for a mulligan for an acute instance of chronically racist behavior, maybe he should have just apologized and declared he would do some introspecting, and try to get a better understanding of his own shortcomings. Instead, he blames others for misunderstanding him, and the way he really feels, and appears to be ready to refuse to follow the NBA commissioner’s edict, and take his case to the courts.
He could volunteer to undergo sensitivity training. The Miami Dolphins are sending Don Jones, one of their players, to sensitivity training for his unkind tweets following the intimate moment caught on camera between newly recruited, first openly gay NFL draftee Michael Sam and his boyfriend. Like drug rehab, sensitivity training requires acknowledging that one’s behavior is not just a “mistake.” It is wrong. Period.
Human rights require respect, but respect alone is not enough. America’s late night satirist-in-chief, Stephen Colbert, has an idiom about our country’s ethnic diversity. “I don’t see race,” he insists, and the audience laughs, because they don’t think that’s really possible, based on his rhetoric, and also because they understand how difficult a concept that can be, in this country.
The reason I like it is it implies that we can set aside our prejudices, and all the garbage we, as associating machines, ascribe to “the other.” It’s a great goal-post, one guaranteed not to move farther away as you gain on it, unless you let it. That really should be the commitment of the American experience. Out of many, one.
A majority of the Supreme Court of the United States thinks we are a post racial country, while at the same time, a traditionally prayerful one. In two decisions over the last three weeks, we have been told that religion and public prayer can be mutually exclusive, even as that prayer affirms a specific religious faith, and that affirmative action as a policy for equalizing opportunity for higher education among our diverse racial make up is itself racist.
In Town of Greece v. Galloway, regarding Christian prayer at public meetings, those who dissented did so not merely because they are considered the more liberal justices. They are the minority not just because they came up on the losing end of a Supreme Court vote. It was, in fact, the Jewish justices, along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who objected to the case’s outcome. (The only other minority on the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas, voted with the majority, and went farther right than Scalia by saying that the states can set their own rules about religion, seeming to conclude that the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment only applies to Congress.)
Anyone who is part of a minority faith in this country understands the implicit persecution about which the respondents in the case complained. This isn’t whining by some people for whom, as the majority wrote, “the prayers gave them offense and made them feel excluded and disrespected.” Of course Christians are allowed to worship as they choose. We all are.
This is striving for a more perfect Union of thought, faith and freedom. But since the First Amendment doesn’t say, “be sensitive to the feelings of other faiths,” the Court finds the Greece, New York, town council’s behavior to be consistent with the Establishment Clause. Too bad you are offended, based on your faith. That’s not unconstitutional.
The majority in the case said “prayer has become part of the Nation’s heritage and tradition.” If that is the criteria that allows for sectarianism in the public square, then it’s amazing that something as traditionally American as “Separate but Equal” is no longer the law of the land. After all, the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Doesn’t the Court’s decision here imply that if it’s part of our nation’s “heritage and tradition,” then it’s okay to engage in it?
The historical context of the decision is based on the fact that there has been prayer in Congress since there’s been a Congress. But the Court’s minority, who agreed with the plaintiffs, distinguish the town council in Greece, NY, because rather than being a legislative body where members may, sit, stand and mill around during a religious convocation, dealing only with each other, a municipality has a different dynamic:
“Greece’s town meetings, by contrast, revolve around ordinary members of the community. Each and every aspect of those sessions provides opportunities for Town residents to interact with public officials. And the most important parts enable those citizens to petition their government. In the Public Forum, they urge (or oppose) changes in the Board’s policies and priorities; and then, in what are essentially adjudicatory hearings, they request the Board to grant (or deny) applications for various permits, licenses, and zoning variances. So the meetings, both by design and in operation, allow citizens to actively participate in the Town’s governance-sharing concerns, airing grievances, and both shaping the community’s policies and seeking their benefits.”
It is reasonable, the minority concludes, that people who are petitioning a town council or board may feel like if they do not participate in the prayer, that the council members will notice and it may go badly for them, as a consequence. It’s not frivolous paranoia. It’s behavior learned from interactions within our Christian majority country.
Just because we are all equal in the eyes of the law does not mean we are all equal in the eyes of those who make the law.
The Supreme Court allows for laws to protect the civic interests of minorities, but also allows laws that protect a society from singling out one group or another for special protection.
Extremists like Justice Scalia basically call out the Fourteenth Amendment as unworkable. “I thought we’ve — we’ve held that the 14th Amendment protects all races,” he asserted during oral arguments in the recently decided Michigan affirmative action case, Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. “I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only — only the blacks. But I thought we rejected that.”
And in his own opinion in this decision, he rhetorically asked, “Does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbid what its text plainly requires?” He goes on to plead for overturning any law that uses race to determine policy, like in the case the lower court relied on in its rejection of Michigan’s anti-affirmative action amendment, where busing as a means to desegregate schools was upheld, despite a plebiscite against it. It “should be overruled,” he wrote.
Even swing Justice Kennedy said, in the majority opinion, “[I]n a society in which those [racial identification] lines are becoming more blurred, the attempt to define race-based categories also raises serious questions of its own.”
He added that it’s better if voters make these decisions. “Perhaps, when enacting policies as an exercise of democratic self-government, voters will determine that race-based preferences should be adopted.” And, he suggested, “In the realm of policy discussions, the regular give-and-take of debate ought to be a context in which rancor or discord based on race are avoided, not invited. And if these factors are to be interjected, surely it ought not to be at the invitation or insistence of the courts.”
But it is the courts that make that determination. The gutting of the Voting Rights Act by this Supreme Court took away traditional government checks on the voting rights of minorities, and only left the Department of Justice with the section that puts the decision on those cases in the courts. It’s the only choice, right now.
To the conservative justices on the Roberts Court, the Civil Rights Movement heralded an end to the age of discrimination, and washed the American punim clean of its bigoted past, leaving it to dark history. “[T]hings have changed dramatically,” they said in handing down the voting rights decision, Shelby County v. Holder, last year. They ignore that although the linens may have been laundered, it’s still the same white sheet going on the same, narrow bed frame. Because they are the court of last resort, we all have to sleep in the bed they make.
Maybe they are saying that is the Founders’ original intent, that we are free to complain and lobby for change but it is white, rich and Christian that rule in our so-called republic, and the rest of us should just get used to it. Sure we have a multicultural, African American president, but they expect from him what they expect from the rest of the great unwashed – go along, don’t make waves, and acknowledge the whip they have in their hand.
We may have elected “Change You Can Believe In,” but they hold higher faith in an older saying:
“The more things change, the more they remain the same.”
“Congress shall make no law respecting…the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Bill of Rights
We are Constitutionally empowered to redress the actions of our government, or its inaction, in matters both social and criminal. American activism is the quintessential expression of that guaranteed right.
Some put their talk to their feet, and march in protest. Some put their grievances to paper, press or keyboard, and some express with their wallets, either by withholding money through boycotts or by making it rain on a politician or a cause. The latter, it should be noted, has become a grievance in itself, for fear the Supreme Court decisions in Citizens United and McCutcheon will give some voices an unfair advantage when it comes to petitioning for change.
Such is the case with the recent attacks by Democratic leaders on the obscenely wealthy, conservative buttresses, Charles and David Koch. “These two brothers are trying to buy America,” Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada) declared on the floor of the upper chamber, in late February.
Because they throw so much money at their robber baron agenda, laced with an unhealthy obsession against government and taxes, the Kochs have become an anathema to progressives and the liberal base of the Democrats. They also have the social sensitivity of Marie Antoinette.
“I guess if you make that much money, you can make these immoral decisions,” Reid added, in his chastisement of the pair’s funding of a group that is airing deliberately misleading ads against Democratic incumbents who voted for the Affordable Care Act. He said the commercials demonstrate that the Koch brothers may have money, but they “have no conscience and are willing to lie” to push their agenda.
“The Koch brothers are about as un-American as anyone I can imagine,” he said. Why such a nationalistic pejorative for two men just trying to lobby their government? Because Reid fears that policy in this country is made by the wealthy, and it is. But more about that below.
So why does Harry Reid bother putting statements like that on the record? That’s what one red state Democratic Senator wondered about the majority leader’s rant.
“If you’re trying to rally the base, the bases have already been rallied,” West Virginia Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin told Fox News, earlier this month. “The right and left bases have been rallied.”
It may be true that, as the Senator says, “There’s people (sic) who don’t like the extreme Democrat politics or extreme Republican politics,” but the money for the political parties is not coming from those people. It’s coming from the ones closer to the extremes, who have an issue with, and perhaps even an unhealthy anxiety and fear of, the opposing party gaining control of the policy arm of our country.
A recent study by Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University bears out that it’s the money that makes policy in American politics. The study finds “that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
Reid’s purpose, then, is more of a direct appeal to “average citizens.” He cannot ask for contributions outright, from the floor of the United States Senate, so he rails against folks like the Kochs, to remind the left just what the they’re fighting against, and to get them to pony up. House Republicans do the same thing, but in a more subtle way, by casting vote after futile vote to repeal the ACA.
Despite President Obama’s calls, last week, for the Republicans in Congress to stop the repeal train and realize that “it’s well past time to move on as a country and refocus our energy on the issues that the American people are most concerned about,” the House has vowed to keep it going.
The president rightly pointed out that “these endless, fruitless repeal efforts come at a cost,” but not for the John Boehner (R-Ohio), Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) and the rest of the House Republican caucus. Every one of those 50 times they’ve wasted the people’s time and money to hold one of those seemingly “fruitless” votes, it’s been anything but that for them, loading their campaign coffers with “speech” from conservative groups and tea party activists. The message to Congress is, hold a vote, get money.
As the university study says, “A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favor) is adopted only about 18% of the time, while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favor) is adopted about 45% of the time.” The money is the message, and according to the Supreme Court, the message is the money. You can expect a similar tactic in the Senate, if the GOP gets control next year.
The two professors go on to warn, that their “analyses suggest that majorities of the American public actually have little influence over the policies our government adopts… [W]e believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organizations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”
Manchin, who considers himself a centrist, said it’s people like him who “have to start making something happen here in Washington to move this country forward.” That may be, but because of the Court’s decisions liberating campaign finance, it’s the extremists – and their money – who decide what moves on Capitol Hill. Centrists are left out in the cold. Except for a few organizations like No Labels and Third Way, there’s no place for the political centrist to have her valued voice heard, except, perhaps, by directly contributing to the candidate of her choice.
The American political system is not abiding those who politely decline to pick a side and stick with it, abhorring them for their unpredictability, but never shy to boast when they vote for the party favorite. That’s a bad thing, when the number of Americans identifying as independents is at its largest, ever.
If, as Manchin lamented about the partisan rhetoric pandering to the extremes, “we got to start being Americans again,” then we all must have equal power in redressing the Congress for our grievances. While this Court sits, that is unlikely, because our voice (money) isn’t “loud” enough to breach the Koch’s dam and reach Capitol Hill. But maybe it can have enough volume to reach Manchin’s Americans, and at least get them to vote for a future that preserves a role for government in helping sustain and improve people’s health and welfare. These used to be things reasonable people agreed on, but that’s when reason was free.
With one super successful lawsuit against Deal’s handling of the state ethics investigation, it appears inevitable that more will follow. Will Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal (R) make it through the May primary, or even to it?
Originally posted on Political Insider blog:
Over the weekend, it became more than obvious that one of Gov. Nathan Deal’s most daunting tasks this year is the drumbeat of ethics-related trials he’ll have to cope with in the run-up to the May primary and November general election.
Fallout from the verdict in the Stacey Kalberman trial will be challenging enough for the Deal camp.
We’ve already seen the governor distance himself from Friday’s verdict and deny even monitoring the Kalberman case from afar. We also expect Democrat Jason Carter to use some of the $1.6 million in his campaign piggy bank to launch constant reminders of the trial – and whatever comes next – the governor’s way.
But two other lawsuits are in the offing, from former ethics commission staffers Sherilyn Streicker and John Hair, with claims strikingly similar to Kalberman’s. If emboldened by Kalberman’s victory, at least one other former employee could soon seek…
View original 1,051 more words