ucDems :: the Blue Phoenix

Go west, young man

2006-10-08T22:53:00.000-05:00

Alternately, go north. Note: also applies if you are a chick. As many of you have probably noticed, there are a whole bunch of election campaigns going on right now. As you may have also heard, things are looking pretty good for the Democrats. As you may also know, there are a couple hot races right here in Chicagoland (a term, incidentally, that I love - makes me think of Legoland): one to the West, Tammy Duckworth vs. Pete Roskam, and one to the North, Dan Seals vs. Mark Kirk.

It's time to get out of Chicago and go out into the provinces - we're so close, and having people knocking on doors is one of the single most effective campaign techniques. As Marx tells us,

[M]ankind always sets itself only such tasks as it can solve...[I]t will always be found that the task itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution already exist or are at least in the process of formation.

The material conditions were not so much at hand for Democrats until the Republicans started imploding, but now the task is eminently soluble. Also, let's bring in Jack Handey to help us understand what Marx may have meant when he referred to "mankind":

Maybe in order to understand mankind, we have to look at the word itself: "Mankind". Basically, it's made up of two separate words - "mank" and "ind". What do these words mean ? It's a mystery, and that's why so is mankind.

Moving right along, one of the criteria you may want to consider when choosing which of these candidates you help out is each one's politics. I canvassed for Duckworth yesterday, and although I found her likable and supported many of her policies, she seemed a tad more conservative than I would otherwise like. For example, she's pretty into tax cuts, which aren't something I see as a pressing issue, but more importantly her message is more conservative. You can tell because she keeps referring to her opponent, Roskam, pejoratively as a trial lawyer - a frame promulgated by the right since most trial lawyers are Democrats. This is bad for the progressive movement as a whole, even if it helps her win right now. Although I'm really not that surprised, since Mr. Win Right Now Instead of Planning for the Long Term (local boy Rahm Emanuel) basically forced out a more progressive Democrat who nearly beat long-term GOP rep, Clinton antagonizer, and alumnus of my very own undergraduate alma mater, Henry Hyde in 2004 anyway.

I met Seals today at a DailyKos event at some stupid bar, and he was both charming and had a somewhat more appealing policy list. But more importantly, his message was a lot stronger. He talked about accountability first and foremost, and I think that is the single most coherent and potent message Democrats can use this election cycle. Plus, if this is really going to be a message to the establishment election, the more progressive the Democrats we send to Washington are, the better off we are. However, that said, Duckworth is still totally worth supporting, and more importantly, she will pick you up in a bus and provide you with an incentive to work for her. My understanding is that the Seals campaign, in that it wasn't hand-picked by Lord Rahm, doesn't have the money to do that. Either way, get involved through UC Dems!

People Always Want You to, Like, Do Stuff

2006-10-05T22:53:00.000-05:00

Part of a general trend in media coverage of politics over the last 25-30 years has been to cover the various salvos in the political battle rather than the substantive issues at stake. It's basically the collusion of beltway insiders who all agree that talking about what you should talk about if you want to win is more interesting than exercising actual leadership...words, in this world view, speak louder than actions. But George Lakoff, hero to many progressives for his books such as Moral Politics, has actually produced one of these pieces that is worth looking at.

As Jacobs and Shapiro chronicle in their book Politicians Don't Pander (which I understand to be considered a rather definitive tome on political discourse in general), at some point major news organizations really started focusing their coverage on the machinations between politicians and the ramifications of same on the eventual chances of a policy being enacted. While political junkies like me sometimes find this interesting, it is frustrating as it comes at the cost of covering the actual implications of policies. In essence, journalism has largely stopped being about providing information and context for responsible democratic citizens to make up their minds and started being mindless "he said-she said" stenography.

For me, this really hit a low point in the early days after 9/11 when the Republicans were ramming through the first of their ludicrous tax cuts. I remember news coverage of that process consisting of a recounting of each side's spin: "Democrats challenged the tax cuts on the basis that they were disproportionately weighted to favor the wealthiest 1% of Americans," a typical story might go. "Republicans then accused Democrats of class warfare and insisted that the majority of the benefit would go to the middle class." Then nothing. No mention of how, if you actually took two seconds to look at the bill, the tax burden was being shifted disproportionately off the super rich and onto everyone else, no mention of how how one side was actually right while the other one was just lying.

So, I would argue that as an outgrowth of this same trend, we are now subjected to unwanted advice on what steps we need to take at every turn. The DLC, for example, might was well change its mission statement to "Telling everyone what Democrats need to start doing" - to quote from an actual speech by their chair, Tom Vilsack, "In order for us to strengthen the American community, I think we...need a very compelling vision of a different America." OK, great Tom, how about you just skip the part about the purpose of the vision and get right to it. Then there are the non-partisan efforts to tell all comers which switches to throw in their quest to run the political machine, such as the new book by a couple national political editors for major news operations.

Then there is George Lakoff, who has produced a much more interesting piece, not coincidentally aimed much more squarely at actual people instead of wannabe beltway hacks.
Another key to this being more interesting is that he is not giving it as a policy address or an insider book, he is delivering it as a resource on a website for people who may be interested in taking a more active part in strategy. It is not, in other words, substituting for actual policy ideas. That's what really separates it from the DLC.

At any rate, I would especially like to draw attention to point #3, the Laundry List Trap. The idea here is that whenever anyone asks a Republican how to address a problem, she has some snarky three word answer. Whenever that same question is put to a Democrat, she has a ten sentence answer that revolves around nuance, caution, and incrementalism. (On a side note, I would assert that this pussyfooting is what makes Democrats look weak, not the substance of their policies.) So I would ask every Democrat out there to do one thing: come up with one sentence describing why you are a Democrat. If your answer involves any specific policy, you already got it wrong; we're focusing on values here. Got your answer yet? Here's mine: because Democrats get that we all need each other. That's it. That creates a whole narrative for any further depth you get into and an easy fall-back for anyone to remember. All the idiotic pundits who try to get Democrats to talk about values to recapture Republican "values voters" would do well to just concentrate on something like this. Our values are never going to be the same as Republican values, so it's time we establish ours firmly.

Promised Daily Show Clip

2006-10-05T23:37:00.000-05:00

The Fox News spinfest is detailed at the end the segment. Oh goodness what a mess.

Excuses Excuses

2006-10-05T13:51:00.000-05:00

What really disgusts me about the Foley thing is how the Republican leadership and spin machine are handling this scandal. Jon Stewart skewered the Republicans last night for their buck passing: it was the booze talking, Foley was molested by a priest, Democrats have sex scandals too, and my personal favorite: Mark Foley IS a Democrat.

As shown above, during the O'Reilly factor clips featuring Mark Foley had captions labeling him as a Florida DEMOCRAT!

Welcome to the bizzaro world. Up is down. Right is left. And Saddam Hussein organized 9/11 and has WMDs.

I'll post the Daily Show segment when it goes up on Youtube.

Fear the Voices

2006-10-03T22:33:00.000-05:00

Fear the voices - no, not the Alice in Chains song. Fear the political voices. Fear seems to drive everything in politics these days. You probably noticed this phenomenon getting under way a couple years ago. Anecdotal evidence abounds of tactics of bullying and intimidation by Republicans to get themselves elected and to get their extremist agenda pushed through: my personal fave was when Bush took crass advantage of the horror and tragedy of 9/11 to weaken his political opponents, the unions. But this isn't just fear-mongering, it is certified authoritarianism.

Researcher Karen Stenner (a/k/a the #1 Stenna) has done some interesting development recently of the already formidable literature on the political psychology of authoritarianism. An essential contribution of hers is the notion that authoritarian tendencies lie somewhat dormant in individuals until they are activated by threats to the things that unify us: common authority and shared values. As we all know, preservation of unity around these elements is butter on the authoritarians' bread, and nothing gets them riled up faster than the fear of erosion of authority and values.

A couple of first-rate fellows recently examined how authoritarianism might apply to our current electoral situation. The astute academics looked specifically at levels of authoritarianism in the electorate, the levels of participation in elections by authoritarians, and the nature of that participation. And guess what they found? Over the last ten years, participation by authoritarians in elections increased dramatically, despite no increase in prevalence within the population overall. Moreover, that participation was funneled almost exclusively into support for Republicans.

In other words, Republicans have sewn fear as a way to strengthen their coalition of authoritarians. Looking back, we see a threat to our shared values was introduced on 9/11/01, bringing on a period of deliberate unity. Gradually that threat faded, but as it did, other threats were introduced to prolong the gain for Republicans. Most of the country eventually figured out that they could resume use of their critical faculties, but some 30% + of people still support Bush. This percentage must be composed primarily of people who like authority more than sound policy, so the plan to scare authoritarians into unwavering support must be working on some level.

But thank goodness the winds are now at the Democrats' backs. Surely that means fear is now overcome, right? Well, there is one more group that remains fearful: beltway insiders. Joe Lieberman is afraid he might be held accountable, the Republican leadership is so afraid of losing one seat that they completely sold themselves out, the right wing echo chamber is afraid of competition from the left, and the punditry is afraid of the democratization of information gathering. All this fear on the part of insiders is due to the democratization of democracy that the internet (and blogs in particular) has brought on. Whereas once we had to fear terrorists or Bush's latest caprice or endless Republican domination, now we've got the insiders on the run from us common citizens. Today the last thing we have to fear is fear itself.

Illinois, Credibility, and Touching Little Boys

2006-10-01T18:32:00.000-05:00

Just when you think you have the Republicans in a hole, they go and dig themselves deeper. By now most have probably heard about the criminal behavior of Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) in soliciting teenage page boys in the House of Representatives over the internet. Unfortunately, most didn't hear out about it until well after the House Republican leadership did (as early as five years ago), and that is going to be the real issue that comes out of this.

And, lucky us here in Chicago, when we're talking about despicable misconduct by Republican leadership, it all comes back to Illinois! That's right, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert was well aware of the problem going way back, as was some guy named Shimkus, who I guess is from downstate somewhere in Illinois. On a side note, many people have heard of Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy", and I would observe that this is why you run a candidate in every district. At the beginning of this cycle, few expected Foley's seat in Florida (let alone the seat of the sitting speaker!) to be a close contest, but by gum it's a lucky thing we have someone in those races now: Laesch in Illinois and Tim Mahoney in Florida. The Illinois connection continues, since local boy Rahm Emanuel is the foremost opponent of this strategy as a whole.

The irony is that the age of consent in Washington, DC is actually 16, so technically a Congressman having sex with a 16-year-old page wouldn't have been illegal. But those fun-hating Republicans, champions of the buzzkill, defenders of the moral order, had to go and pass a bill specifically targeting the solicitation of minors under 18 over the internet - oh wait, it wasn't just Republicans, it was Mark Foley's bill! So despite the legal acrobatics of the case, Foley has still joined some pretty elite company (8-year-olds, Dude.). It's interesting, however that few of the moralizing right wing groups we have come to know and love have come out with any harsh language condemning Rep. Foley or the Republican leadership to date.

So the question for right now, as far as I can identify it, is how discredited are Republicans really becoming? They've always told us that they are strong on national security/defense and moral values, so now that they have f***ed up Iraq, the hunt for Bin Laden, and moral values, who believes them any more? I would guess nobody, but then again one of my faults has always been an unshakable lack of faith in the sagacity of anything Republicans say.

Truth Has a Well Known Liberal Bias

2006-09-29T12:07:00.000-05:00

Experts, pundits, and concerned citizens have looked at the various stages of Joe Lieberman's candidacy through an assortment of frames, some more accurate than others. The most popular, and least accurate, frame among the establishment set is that rabid bloggers and single issue war opponents who want to commit party suicide like McGovern did railroaded an honorable public servant out of office. Never mind that nobody got up in arms over how right next door, moderate Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) was 'primaried' from the right, an habitual practice by far-right groups like the Club for Growth that has been a major contributor to the increasing polarization of Congress over the last decade or so.

At any rate, from my understanding of blogger and progressive motives, Lieberman has not been targeted because of any one position, including his support for the occupation of Iraq. There are plenty of Democrats, even Senators, and even up for re-election this year (Cantwell comes to mind), who are for the war and who have not been targeted by the party's left. No, the fundamental problem we have with Lieberman is that he's full of crap.

Lieberman (CfL-CT) does not just support the war, he supports Bush's insane unitary executive theories for its justification and props up the president in so doing. Not only does Lieberman pull this kind of garbage today, he was also a key supporter of the Republican witch hunt of Clinton (that right-wingers are now blaming Clinton for allowing himself to be distracted from focusing on Bin Laden) and a key mole in the Democrats' unified opposition to Bush's social security fiasco. In general, my point here is that Democrats as a party are weaker for letting Lieberman associate himself with us.

Now, it is pretty well established at this point among those who pay attention that discourse in good faith is impossible with the Republican party - Bush uses straw man arguments to bolster his own rhetorically weak positions, Congressional leaders often refuse to even allow Democratic amendments and bills to be debated, and so forth. So what do we have instead? We have Jim Webb.

Webb is running as a Democrat for George Allen's (R-VA) Senate seat, and fortunately Allen is doing all he can to help. This is particularly notable because Webb was in Reagan's cabinet as a Republican. Webb enjoys a lot of support from the blogosphere, and it's (obviously) not because he's a fringe liberal. It's because he's a sensible guy who has decided that if you want anybody to look at the merits of a proposal in good faith, you have to go with the Democrats.

So, support for Webb is not a contradiction for the people who fought Lieberman - it is a logically consistent position. We didn't fight Lieberman because he wasn't an ideological doppelganger of ourselves, we fought him because he's a terrible human being. Democrats today are doing all they can to be the party of reason and at least some measure of intellectual honesty, and that is why no matter what happens in Connecticut this November, we win for having dumped Lieberman.

Lieberman Update: What happens if he wins?

2006-09-26T12:39:00.000-05:00

So after writing that last post in the post primary haze for our failed Google Groups, I don't feel like I'd really be saying anything reposting here on UC Dems without addressing the more pressing question.

If you look here (scroll till you see Joe and click for a nice java script chart, and by now you should realized I pretty much only read Slate.com) you'll see Independent Joe Lieberman with a nice lead over the Liberal Avenger Ned Lamont.

The question then becoms: Is Lamont still a boon to the Democrats if he ends up costing us a seat in the Senate?

I'd say it isn't as big of deal as one might think. Lets say Democrats don't win enough races to take back the Senate or be within one of taking back the Senate. Lieberman as an independent wont really hurt us too much, he'll probably be irked at Democrats and cozy up to the Republicans, poor Dems. But wait, wasn't he doing that anyway? So no real loss.

If the Democrats do win enough seats to take back the Senate without Joe then they'll have to deal with him as an Independent. But again, he isn't as bad as a Republican and had Lamont not beaten him in the Primary then Dems would still have to deal with Bush Light, except he'd be one of us instead of an outsider.

The real cringable scenarios are what happens if the Dem's only get 49 seats in the Senate. In this case, depending on what happens in Vermont, there will either be two Indepents: Bernie Sanders (who won the Dem Primary but decided to run as an Independent) and Joe Lieberman.

OR

There'll be only Joe, and we'll be one man down from tying the Republican Majority.

In this first of these scenarios the Dems are in better shape then the R's because both the independents would be more Democratically inclined. In the second...well I'll eat my shoe for liking Lamont. But, as a consilation prize, even if Joe was still blue, ol'Cheney would still have tie splitting vote.

Man this post has grown totally out of control.

Summary: I still support Lamont (even if Joe wins).

Lieberman defeat, good or bad for the Democratic Party?

2006-09-26T12:05:00.000-05:00

Originally I disliked the idea of the Lamont victory. It seemed to me that spending Democrat's dollars on a race which would have no affect on the our hold of the Senate was a waste. Why use resources when we need everything we have for November?

Plus, what kind of message does Lieberman's defeat send to the rest of the country? Democrats are often criticized for their lack of 'backbone' when it comes to the War on Terror, and this seemed to only add fuel to the fire. As Jacob Weisberg put it in his Slate piece (http://www.slate.com/id/2147395/), what happened in Connecticut is an anti-war revolt reminiscent of the single-issue voting which happened in the Vietnam era and lead to such huge Democratic blunders and McGovern.

But the more you think about it, and this piece by Michael Tomasky (http://www.slate.com/id/2147566/ ) helps you think about it, the Lieberman case is in fact fairly isolated. As Tomasky points out, none of the other pro war Democratic Senators are facing a challenge anywhere near what Lieberman had to face. In every state but Connecticut its business as usual, incumbents are reelected in the primaries.

In fact, Tomasky notes, Lieberman was kind of being a jerk to the Democratic party. What Lieberman seemed to confuse was that there's a difference between being pro war and pro executive power. You can believe we should have invaded Iraq AND believe Bush has completely @&#ked it up.

What Democrats need to do in the next election is let Americans know that we are a party that can be strong and thoughtful as opposed to the Republican policy of being rash and stupid. Americans need to know that Bush's way is the wrong way, and his foreign policy is endangering both American lives and world stability.

Thinking of Lieberman as less of a Democrat and more as a Bush yes-man helps put this race in its proper context: Democrats standing up to the complacency which allows the Bush administration to wreak havoc unchecked.

Pro-Life Democrats Redux

2005-04-26T17:18:00.000-05:00

With the current brinksmanship in the Senate, John Leo reminded me what it's all about: abortion. Well, really the lust for mastery. Hence, I would like to draw everyone's attention to this happy item . Of course, as the item states, there will have to be compromises. Pro-choicers will need to allow parents to know that their minor daughter wants to have an abortion. And pro-lifers actually will have to allow taxpayers to pay for contraception, putting people's perversional radars in a tizzy. But for ontological pro-lifers like me, this just may be the start of something beautiful which will die in committee.

Dissension in the Ranks

2005-03-01T08:52:00.000-06:00

One reason I read the conservative press is to look for signs of conflict within the intellectual coterie from which the ideology of the present Administration is formed. No group of affinity is a monolith, so you cannot characterize "conservative thought" to close specifics et cetera. I recently have seen signs that the Weekly Standard , one of the chief conservative, organs may be displeased with our recently re-elected President. While the election was nigh, the exemplar neo-conservatives there held the line for Bush against Kerry, because Bush was a lesser evil and likely to be more responsive than Kerry to conservative critiques. With the President now safely elected, the critiques begin. The clincher comes at the end, unfortunately. The President also recently was encouraged to come to some compromise with the Europeans regarding the Kyoto Protocol. .

Now, truthfully, both of these opinion pieces are by one man: Irwin M. Stelzer, Director of Economic Policy Studies and Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute . He apparently has AEI chops as well. And he is bold. Even during the election, he was repeating the theme of "Bush as lesser evil" in the economic sphere. But his ideas are not radical. Reducing dependence on foreign oil could mean a variety of unpleasant things and what vague plans Stelzer has include some. Reducing GHG emissions without stifling economic growth might be barely possible in this country with current technology but it is clearly impossible in developing economies such as India and China.

But the admissions of weakness are important. What aggrieves me most about the present Administration is not its policies but its arrogance, the feeling that disagreement with it makes one a valueless traitor. Better to deal with people who believe that increasing payroll taxes would hurt the incentive of people making 90-120 K to work than people consumed with their own righteousness preaching world revolution. If I want that, I can talk to the Spartacists.

On another note: I am very happy to see the Lebanese standing tall against the Syrians. I worry, however, what will happen if the Syrians push back.

Safe, Legal, and Never: Senator Clinton's New Tack on Abortion

2005-01-27T08:16:00.000-06:00

William Saletan in Slate has an excellent review of Hillary Clinton's recent remarks on reproductive choice. As anyone who read my reviews of the recent set of Presidential debates could tell, I have a serious problem with the stances taken on abortion by both parties. What annoys me about the GOP is that their rhetoric is essentially empty. Bush may parrot the Pope with his talk of a "culture of life" but this advocate of pre-emptive war and broad and sometimes unthinking implementation of capital punishment takes Evangelium Vitae as seriously as fellow Methodist, Hillary Clinton.

Leaving the jokes aside, the GOP seem to have two erroneous attitudes toward abortion. First, they sometimes use it as a falsely contrived "wedge issue" to gain votes in the South. The story goes something like this: the northeastern liberal elite has hijacked the Supreme Court, so we can't ban the abortion clinics, how about we pass a parental consent law to expose the Dems as wedded to baby-killing special interests? Second, if they earnestly seek to end abortion, the GOP looks at the past through rose-colored fog. In 1960, at the end of the magical decade the GOP still reveres, (Ah, McCarthyism, those were the days.), the population of the United States was 180 million. Abortion was mostly illegal in the United States. It is estimated (and no estimates agree, these are the uncertainties, ideological and otherwise) that somewhere between 100,000-1,000,000 abortions were performed per year. 500,000 is probably a reasonable number. In 2000, the population of the United States was 280,000,000. Neglecting demographic artifacts, without legalized abortion, there would be 780,000 abortions per year. 857,745 legal abortions were reported in 2000. Indeed, this number has increased faster than population since, despite the current Executive's opposition to the practice. Like the economy, abortion is something on which a president can have immediate impact. Interestingly enough, the highest abortion rates were reported in the late 1970s and oddly declined generally since.

What this implies is that abortion is one phenomenon Marx readily would understand. It's socioeconomically rather than morally driven. Legalization, like the availability of better technology, only enhances it. This means abortion only can be stopped by reconstituting society differently than the 1950s or the present to reduce the socioeconomic pressure to use it. Sorry, folks. Changing "hearts" will be insufficient. It's very sad that Kerry didn't have the courage to attack Bush directly on this issue. His faith vs. works rhetoric would be most readily applicable to abortion, but then he would have to admit the complicity of his own party.

But I know that all people don't find abortion as morally problematic as I do. But abortion's status as a socioeconomic phenomenon should make you care. The greatest users of abortion are young, poor African-American women. Talking about this as "genocide" is hyperbolic, but this is one issue on which Alan Keyes actually does make sense. Choice for poor women of any background is really no choice at all. And if there's anyone with the chops to take on both NARAL and the GOP here, it's Hillary Clinton.

An Issue Both Parties Should Get Behind

2004-11-24T11:21:00.000-06:00

In this case, criminal law reform. Here is a case of a judicial appointee of the current President (and fairly conservative among his cohort) who recommended executive clemency because he seems to have felt the sentence he was giving should be unconstitutional but was not. Table 1 and the response of the prosecution in this case is extremely instructive. If this is the kind of argument Assistant US Attorneys are giving in court, the DOJ really is not tough enough on terrorists and spies.

View From the Far, Far Right

2004-11-10T16:41:00.000-06:00

A few years ago, I argued that some of the conflict concerning secession before the Civil War was rooted in the different political philosophies that held sway in the North and the South. In the North, partisans of the 18th century Scottish philosopher Adam Ferguson argued that God was a party to all political covenants. No contractor was freed from such a covenant without offending God. In the South, following Locke, the contractors were quite free to leave if they felt sufficiently aggrieved.

I always thought the Civil War had settled the issue in favor of Ferguson, at least in terms of effects. Of course, I never thought about this outcome , which is so naive from an economic standpoint as to be laughable. Even if you believe that public morals trumps economic prosperity, it is rather ridiculous to talk of America as being a superpower that is a beacon of freedom (and/or Christianity) to the world, when you've expelled all of the imperialist economies from the nation.

A Civil Society

2004-11-01T21:51:00.000-06:00

In his defense during the Haymarket Trial, the famous anarchist August Spies defends the editorial content of the newspaper with which he is associated, Arbeiter-Zeitung (The Worker's Daily, I think...) by quoting from the Fond Du Lac (WI) Commonwealth ,

"To arms, Republicans! Work in every town in Wisconsin for men not afraid of firearms, blood or dead bodies, to preserve peace [that is the `peace' I have been speaking of] and quiet; avoid a conflict of parties to prevent the administration of public affairs from falling into the hands of such obnoxious men as James G. Jenkins. Every Republican in Wisconsin should go armed to the polls on next election day. The grain-stacks, houses and barns of active Democrats should be burned; their children burned and their wives outraged, that they may understand that the Republican party is the one which is bound to rule, and the one which they should vote for, or keep their vile carcasses away from the polls. If they still persist in going to the polls, and persist in voting for Jenkins, meet them on the road, in the bush, on the hill, or anywhere, and shoot every one of these base cowards and agitators. If they are too strong in any locality, and succeed in putting their opposition votes into the ballot box, break open the box and tear in shreds their discord-breathing ballots. Burn them. This is the time for effective work. Yellow fever will not catch among Morrison Democrats; so we must use less noisy and more effective means. The agitators must be put down, and whoever opposes us does so at his peril. Republicans, be at the polls in accordance with the above directions, and don't stop for a little blood. That which make the solid South will make a solid North."

I do not know what first outraged me about this editorial. It may have been simply the serious proposals of partisan violence. It may have been the last theme, in which the violent disenfranchisement of African-Americans in the South is seen as imitable example by northern Republicans, their alleged political allies. But when I read I first read this excerpt from Spies' address, I remember thinking in those golden years before anyone had heard of Monica Lewinsky that Americans are so much more civil these days.

These last ten years or so have made me wonder...and this article made me wonder whether we are returning to the partisan violence of an older age . In 1876, the leading African-American politician in Philadelphia (the Barack Obama of his day) was shot to death on Election Day. As far as I am concerned, Reconstruction ended that day. The Hayes-Tilden Compromise was incidental. Violence and intimidation to influence an American election may have some historical precedent, but it is a traitorous act. Packing the ballot boxes and destroying ballots is criminal, but it is generally acknowledged to favor both sides about equally. Violence benefits the more fanatical party.

I know many of the UC Democrats are going to be "getting out the vote" in Wisconsin tomorrow, and many are around the country doing the same. I would ask you to remain civil. If you are rejected and reviled, remain calm and collected. If voters are disenfranchised in your presence, appeal to the consciences of the election judges rather than their fears of litigation. If you see Republicans intimidating voters, shame them into better behavior. Ask them if the Presidency of the United States is worth the faith of the American people and the entire world in our democratic and representative government. And if you forget, here is the basis of our system:

1. Suffrage is the right of as many as possible. Throughout our history, we have extended it from wealthy property owners and the visible saints of the Congregational Church to all citizens over the age of 18. While some would disqualify convicted felons from voting, I would remind them that the origin of such prohibitions is the antiquated legal truth that felons were dead at law, since they often soon would be dead in all other important respects. A felon who tries to vote does break the laws of many states, but the desire and the effort to vote is a sign of their rehabilitation. Hence, there is less harm in allowing someone who you believe is a felon to vote than there is in disenfranchising a law-abiding citizen. In deciding one's eligibility to vote, the voter should receive the benefit of the doubt.

2. The ballot is secret. From our English forebears, we inherited a system of viva voce elections, and like the English, we have discarded it. There was too much chance for intimidating the powerless or anybody else who might vote differently from the majority in their community. On Election Day, never ask who someone is voting for (spouses and possibly exit pollsters excepted). If you want to give people rides to the polls, give rides to all you can find in need. When handing out voter's guides et cetera, tell them, "Here is a voter guide from X. Enjoy your vote." If you are offered a voter's guide that you probably will disagree with, accept cheerfully. If you're asked to vote for X, say you'll take it under advisement. You'll have your chuckle when the curtain closes.

3. If the popular will cannot be discerned, the public good should triumph. In fact, the laws, frame of government, and civil peace should be upheld to the highest degree possible. Not everyone in American history has obeyed this rule. In fact, most have not. But in close elections, no one stages a coup. No one should this year. If there are irregularities or ties, all sides should forge a compromise. A house divided cannot stand though the letter of the Constitution be obeyed. We're not fighting a war over the issues of this election, and we better not act as if we want to. Our system is a balance of powers. And if one side wants to upset that balance, the other side should use the system to fight the power.

And yes, I know you'll all behave. And I'm sorry to patronize, but I have enough historical perspective to worry for the Republic and I hope you all do, too. And if anyone is in Fond Du Lac and sees any of the activities mentioned in the editorial quoted above, local law enforcement and CNN should be notified immediately.

Electoral Permutations

2004-10-29T11:24:00.000-05:00

Who Will the President of the United States be on January 21, 2005?

We all know that the outcome of the Presidential election probably will not be settled by the morning of November 3, but most people think that there are two possible outcomes for the Presidential election:

President: George W. Bush of Texas
Vice-President: Richard P. Cheney of Texas (often called Wyoming for constitutional reasons)

or

President: John F. Kerry of Massachusetts
Vice-President: John Edwards of North Carolina

but they're wrong.

Given three very realistic conditions, this race could become very interesting:

A) No candidate gains a majority of the Electoral College
B) Because an elector in West Virginia votes for Richard Cheney of Texas or John McCain of Arizona for President and anyone for Vice-President
C) Democrats control the Senate, Republicans control a majority of state delegations in the House.

In this case, the election might end in this way:

President: George W. Bush/ Richard Cheney/ John McCain
Vice-President: John Edwards

Personally, I think a McCain-Edwards Administration would be very cool, but I don't trust the House of Representatives to see it that way. Kerry better get a majority.

Me-too-ism

2004-10-21T14:30:00.000-05:00

I'm tired of liberals conceding the point that conservatives have a better idea of what "values" are important to this country. I think Thomas Frank says it best in this excerpt from a Salon.com article:

How should John Kerry talk about Values?

July 26, 2004 Thomas Frank, author of "What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America"

Conservatives have expended vast resources to pin a sinful label on their hated foe, "liberal elite." Just the book titles alone sound like a list of cardinal sins: Arrogance, Bias, Persecution, Slander, Treason. Along the way, they have even managed to persuade the mainstream media that the GOP, thanks to its strength in the "heartland," holds a monopoly on all the virtues of Boy Scout law: humility, loyalty, piety, honesty, trustworthiness and so on.
Until now, the Democratic response has been wild, panicked me-too-ism. They seem to have forgotten the old Madison Avenue rule that making the identical claims as your competitor only strengthens his message, makes him seem like the real thing and you a cheap wannabe. A particularly disheartening example was John Kerry's recent claim to be a bearer of "conservative values," a tacit concession that liberals -- the rank and file of John Kerry's party, by the way -- really don't have good values. It was a tactical blunder that should have infuriated good liberals everywhere.

Democrats need a unique, distinctive take on values, and they need to go on the attack. First of all, they must neutralize the conservative "values" juggernaut by pointing out that conservative leaders are hypocrites. Republican claims are rendered obscene by Republican deeds. Here, allow the camera to sweep across a heartland panorama, with all its shuttered downtowns, cleaned-out farmers, retirees euchred by Enron, and cops beating strikers. Don't talk to us about humility when you're deregulating the electricity industry, accepting the boodle from Merrill Lynch, and feeding the population of this country into the maw of Archer Daniels Midland.

Second, focus on the values that Democrats have a natural claim to: security, equality, solidarity. Liberalism is capable of delivering a society where the gap between rich and poor, management and labor, isn't so vast. It's capable of giving us a world where people aren't constantly menaced by the shadow of poverty and disease. Where everyone has a right to healthcare, to an education, and to a job. Where Americans are one people, looking out for one another, not constantly at each other's throats. These are values that resonate powerfully with Americans, even those who live in red states, and they have the virtue of being values that are linked to action. They aren't just about the way you talk and the way you pray and the kind of car you drive -- they are about what you do.

Read the rest:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/07/26/dnc_values/index.html

Oh no he didn't!

2004-10-14T19:48:00.000-05:00

The flak that Kerry is getting for bringing up Mary Cheney in the final debate is ridiculous. Before everyone gets all crazy, here is the quote that has everyone up in arms:

"And I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as."

This was a comment made about a woman in her 30s who has been out for quite some time. Dare I say that this was a respectful comment, and what followed was a well reasoned stance that we, as a population, should respect everyone's rights and choices. Apparently, though, in the eyes of Lynne Cheney this makes Kerry a bad bad man:

"The only thing I could conclude is that this is not a good man. This is not a good man. And, of course, I'm speaking as a mom. And a pretty indignant one. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."

I think Atrios sums it up pretty well:
There's nothing shameful about being an out lesbian, what's shameful is that an unreconstructed bigot like Pat Buchanan gets to pontificate about it. It's aboslutely fascinating that merely mentioning that someone isn't straight makes you a bad person, while advocating for a constitutional amendment to make your running mate's daughter a second class citizen is just politics.

http://atrios.blogspot.com

Thoughts From the Right: Did We Watch the Same Debate?

2004-10-14T01:22:00.000-05:00

Before I begin the rundown...two thoughts.

1. There are no more debates. Hence, we avoid a future debate drinking game with these rules.

A. Drink whenever Bush mentions Ted Kennedy.
B. Down a shot of whiskey (or Guinness) if Ted Kennedy is mentioned favorably.
(Disclaimer: I disapprove of debate drinking games on two grounds. 1. Sobriety in political matters has been fashionable since at least the end of the Civil War and I think we've benefited therby. 2. Considering how many times Bush and Kerry repeat certain stock phrases, you might get alcohol poisoning if your rules are too expansive or unlucky.)

2. Schieffer's question on whether homosexuality is a choice matched thoughts I had earlier in the evening when reading about studies investigating a genetic basis for homosexuality. If a genetic basis could be proven, how would "mere Christian" (if you're confused by the term, skip the rest of this item) theology and its political forces respond to this finding? I don't know, but I do recall that much of the current abortion controversy historically stems from a blending of new scientific information about the nature of the embryo and fetus with rather vaguer older teachings about the value of fetal life. Bush says he doesn't know, because he may suspect the implications (both political and theological), and Kerry says he already knows (and he, too, may understand the implications).

Now onward!

Gary Andres argues that the President he knows and loves is back and Kerry has returned to stiff policy wonk mode . In other words, the anti-Gore attack strategy has not been used for a while, so let's bring it back. Kerry was quoting locally-tailored statistics during all three debates. Moreover, if I were in Arizona, I would be curious about the potential for property tax relief due to Kerry's funding plan for No Child Left Behind. And if Bush is criticizing Kerry's record in the Senate, we need to hear about that record and his 600 votes against tax increases. My one complaint about Kerry's style is that his speech outline about questions of faith and politics is rambling, logically inconsistent, and sounds somewhat insincere. Conservatives tend to confuse the word "stiff" for the word "thoughtful." Perhaps, Andres has made this error.

Now what about Andres' claims about Bush's successes?:
1. "He tagged Kerry hard on being a tax and spend liberal."

The "paygo" line and the leftist-bashing was ineffective. Kerry put forth a healthcare plan in which the government would act like an employer of those with incomes of less than about $40,000 and allow those with greater incomes to buy in at less-subsidized or market prices. Kerry is proposing that the government simply expand the free market of healthcare by subsidizing the expansion of that market. Bush's allusions to the National Health were ineffective. Kerry was acting like he was making use of Tony Blair's Third Way. It was hard to think of Kerry as a leftist. But it was easy to see Bush as someone who had jeopardized Social Security by squandering the surplus and expanding the deficit even before trillions of dollars of new spending proposed at the Republican National Convention. Tax and spend conservative, unfortunately, doesn't have a ring to it.

2. "He effectively attacked his Senate record."

No, he didn't. Kerry parried point by point.

3. "Saying "a plan is not a litany of complaints," and "promises you can't pay for" put Kerry on the defense from the beginning."

This was effective. Kerry still has no Iraq plan that exists in isolation from the President, but he has other plans, if only he would stop attacking long enough to tell us about them. But if Kerry can't pay for his promises, I think Kerry proved Bush can't pay for his.

4. "Bush was even able to bring up some effective foreign-policy points in a domestic-policy debate, like highlighting Kerry's vote against the first Gulf War and his silly line about the 'global test.'"

The first point I admit. But Bush didn't explain why the "global test" is silly. He should be reading this blog. And Kerry, for the good of us all, should find a counterargument.

Intermezzo

My favorite moment of the debate: Bush makes a praeteriton (voluntary or involuntary?) when he looks like he is about to attack the mainstream media and says "nevermind."

The Corner is filled with talk of liberal media bias and post-debate spin. No word yet what they think about their candidate's aborted attempt to take on the mainstream press.

Thoughts From the Right: "Liberal Bias" With Examples

2004-10-09T20:37:00.000-05:00

John Leo writes on press errors and dissimulation concerning the Vietnam war records of the candidates and Administration claims about Iraq. What Leo doesn't argue is that liberal press bias of this type is a powerful (and perhaps necessary) counter-discourse against analogously spun information from the White House. Liberal press bias actually may serve the public good...

You Can Run But You Can't Hide

2004-10-08T21:43:00.000-05:00

...from deja vu when it came to that last debate. Different things were repeated, and the stock phrases were repeated less to ad nauseam , but so much of it was familiar.

Key Items

Bush is back... he matched Kerry step by step and if he failed, Kerry was missing the ball, too. The deer left the headlights and did what he does best. Both sides were on the attack (and sometimes excessively so, ignoring substance when they felt like clearing the decks for action), but they were breathtakingly cheerful.

I started taking notes at a question posed to Bush about the environment. Bush was not expecting this question, perhaps hoping that foreign policy and homeland security would occupy most of the debate. His first talking point was 90% emissions reduction in off-road diesel vehicles. Whoopie! A long ramble followed in which he used a Christian code phrase, "I'm a good steward of the land." While it was nice to have apparent theological common ground with the President, I also remember former Secretary of the Interior Watt, who expected the coming of the Lord soon enough to believe we would be held accountable for not exploiting our natural resources fully enough. How do we know that theology is not held among Bush appointees? Note Bush's talk about the Healthy Forests Initiative and his allusion to logging. Recall that our forests are tinderboxes not because they have not been adequately harvested but because we have suppressed fires over the last century. What guarantees do we have that harvesting will not stop once the forests are returned to their primeval conditions?

His energy plan? Clean ways of exploiting gas and coal! Hydrogen cars (but how we will generate the hydrogen?). Ethanol and biodiesel (for the farm lobby) [1]. Kerry was right, the last energy bill was probably "No Lobbyist Left Behind." Both candidates however recognize that new energy technology is desperately needed to "free us from our dependence on foreign oil." Kerry needs to give more details on how he will foster a spirit of entrepeneurship: a key of both his energy and economic plans.

And then we hit abortion...if obliquely...

Some relatively young man asked the President who he wanted to appoint to the Supreme Court. Of course, the President wasn't going to give specifics. Of course, he wants to appoint strict constructionists (such as Scalia and Thomas, as Kerry noted). The judges involved in the latest 9th Circuit Pledge case, of course, don't pass the President's test. Then in the jurisdiction in which it originated, the President criticized the decision of the Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Of course, almost no one today thinks Dred Scott was rightly decided, though most would argue that it failed on the grounds of basic justice. But the President claimed it wasn't decided on strict constructionist principles. Well, Chief Justice Roger Taney wouldn't make the Court on Bush's watch, but read his decision . We may note that this decision calls Scott "A Plaintiff in Error," a legal term that bears other meaning besides that he sought a writ of error. Taney's claim was that Scott was not a citizen and therefore incompetent to bring suit in the courts of the United States on the basis of the Constitution, in which two clauses clearly indicate that African-Americans were slaves and not citizens.

I draw your intention to 9. supra , "The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now according to its true meaning and intention when it was formed and adopted."

If that isn't original intent and strict construction, I don't know what is...

All right, we'll stop attacking the President now. I really didn't like where the debate turned from there. Kerry argued that justices should be chosen on the basis of impersonality of decisions. I know what he really said, but in rebuttal, let me say that the best judge I know ordered the Ten Commandments to be removed from a courthouse. But in his decision, it was clear that he was a faithful Christian who obeyed the Commandments and read his and many other Bibles, but he wished to uphold the law as he saw it. You could tell he was a Christian, and I think justice was better served.

And then we hit abortion...and both candidates were lost for words when it came to emotional questions of stem cells and tax dollars for abortion. Neither Bush's talk about "the culture of life" and the mysterious "culture of hospitality" nor Kerry's rambling attempt to justify why Americans should support what they consider moral evils with their tax dollars were compelling. Bush clearly wants to ban abortion, he should propose a plan that will make it rare enough it can be effectively banned. Kerry should identify those situations when the free exercise of one's rights deserves public support.

[1] One of my biology professors claimed that a gallon of gasoline was generated by an area of biomass equivalent to the area of the Midway near the University of Chicago. Except that we would need to grow corn on it.

Thoughts from the Right: Bribery and the Global Test

2004-10-08T16:44:00.000-05:00

The New York Post analyzes Charles Duelfer's report concerning weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq:
I always hate to say this, but the Post is right. In fact, the Post is right more often than you would think, especially when they discuss the corruption of New York state and city politics. But here the Post is right, because it recognizes that Duelfer's report provides the American people with a full account of the global power politics that were in the background of the Gulf War.

I think I alluded in my first entry that I briefly supported the removal of Saddam Hussein from power by American military intervention. I supported the war and the fairly unilateral prosecution of the war based on two assumptions:

1) Saddam Hussein's government was in significant violation of the agreements and other instruments of international law that bound it from manufacturing weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems. And somehow, he was hiding his violations from UN weapons inspectors. Moreover, the United States somehow knew of these violations with a high degree of confidence.

2) Support for the war, both morally and materially, was not forthcoming from the French and the Russians, because those governments desired that Saddam Hussein's Iraq would be freed from the post-Persian Gulf restrictions, thereby yielding two benefits in uncertain order of importance:

i) An economically more prosperous, more stable, and more open Iraqi society in which Baathist government would resemble the Putinesque Russian state.

ii) Preferential treatment of French and Russian corporations in bidding for Iraqi oil contracts and general participation in a more prosperous and open Iraqi economy.

What Duelfer's report and other wisdom says is that 1) was untrue. What the Post pointed out here was that 2) was true in part. What the Post's analysis does not clarify is whether 2) is true in part, because:

a) The UN, France, Russia, and China (and incidentally, the doubly allegedly coerced and bribed nation of Poland.) had officials and other interests who were consciously and unconsciouly co-opted by Saddam Hussein to oppose military action or provide illegal technology. And these interests threw the balance of national opinion and/or policy against war.

b) The UN, France, Russia, and China are so corrupt that Saddam co-opted the chief policymakers to serve his interests out of their own self-interest through manipulation of the Oil for Food program etc.

c) The UN, France, Russia, and China opposed military intervention for their own legitimate reasons, and the corruption was incidental to the policy decision.

What the Post misses is that even if a), b), or c) are true, the falsehood of 1) still means that military action was illegitimate, if 1) was acted because of negligence rather than honest error. And since the Administration refuses to admit honest error, we must conclude that they were negligent. I know how mad this makes people, but with the small exception of genocide (this exception never has been fully invoked) aggressive war is forbidden by the UN Charter. No matter how bad you think someone else's leader or system of government is, the right of rebellion and removal is reserved to the people. (That's an interpretation of Locke. I know many would disagree.) If 1) were true, the United States and Great Britain would possess the right of enforcement of agreements to which they were parties even to the point of removal and change of government, provided the Security Council approved.

And there's the rub...and the problem of 2). The Administration, probably concluding some form of 2), thought that they could subvert the jurisdiction of Iraq (i.e., remove its government) without Security Council approval. But they never explained what they were doing. And they still haven't. Folks like the Editorial Board of the Post can make excuses for them, but somehow the Administration never speaks boldly for itself.

The burden on both campaigns in the wake of the Duelfer Report is clear. The Bush Campaign must explain why the Administration was negligent or admit honest error. They also must explain why they bypassed the UN.

The Kerry campaign is not off the hook. They must explain what the "global test" means in the face of greater and lesser tampering with regional powers and international institutions by those who threaten the order of the world.

P.B.: Good luck to all who are canvassing this weekend!

I didn't need to watch the debate...

2004-10-06T08:28:00.000-05:00

...I Can Just Read Jay Nordlinger I have not seen anything about Dick Cheney's Machiavellian appeal, but I am not holding my breath. Apparently, despite microphones problems, Cheney was calm, collected, and did not resemble Lord Vader.

Ooh, did it go that badly?

2004-10-05T23:00:00.000-05:00

I returned home too late to see the debate in full. But I was listening to the BBC. Their reporter described the vice-presidential candidates as "a father debating his strong-willed son and Edwards is the son." From what little of the debate I caught, though, Edwards seemed to be holding his own, which is all he really could expect to do. It is generally acknowledged that Dick Cheney was the gravitas of the Bush ticket in 2000, and he hasn't lost much of it by spending time in his bunker.

And while Cheney has been targeted as a weakness in the Administration by the Kerry campaign, he is still deeply respected by the Republican base for a reason. If Bush is supposed to assure mothers that their children are safe, Cheney assures fathers that any threats to their families' safety will be soon dead, by fair means or foul (preferably foul). Hence, all of Edwards' talk about Halliburton seems wasteful. Everyone knows that Dick Cheney is a shady operator. It is a key element of his appeal. I suspect I will be seeing something in praise of the Machiavellian aspects of Cheney tomorrow morning.

Newsweek Polls are In!

2004-10-02T16:54:00.000-05:00

The first completely fresh post-debate sample polls have come in, and Newsweek reports that Kerry is now up 47% to Bush's 45%!

Without Nader, Kerry's margin goes up another percentage point with 49% Kerry and 46% Bush. Kerry has improved his public perception across the board. Read the article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6159637/site/newsweek/