This week President Barack Obama reminded America why it voted for him. His State of the Union Address on Wednesday was more than just a renewal of the kinds of sensible plans the country needs to provide the jobs of the future and restore forward momentum, important though those may be. He also called out the parties to tone down the mutual attacks and get to work on the people's problems. He understands that these partisan tactics are now of themselves the greatest impediment to addressing the nation's problems. In fact, if you will recall, it was one of the strongest themes of his presidential campaign.
He continued that line in an unprecedented 82-minute question and answer session with the congressional Republicans meeting in Baltimore yesterday. You have to see this to believe it. One Republican after another made grandstanding speeches ending with attempts at "gotcha" questions. Obama proceeded to demolish their "facts" and return to his theme: if both sides spend all their time "demonizing" each other it leaves no room for them to compromise and get anything done in the public interest. It makes the public ever more cynical and working together ever more politically difficult. Meanwhile the nation's problems continue to mount.
See for yourself how he refutes their contentions by referring to OMB and GAO figures from memory, asking anyone there to correct his facts if they are wrong. No one ever does. Then he lasers back to problem solving in the public interest, reiterating that if GOP politicians keep referring to him and his plans as "crazy" and "Bolshevik" then their own base will make it impossible for them to deal with him at all.
The stated result will be that national problems will fester without resolution. The unstated but implied political result is that independents will see the Republicans as the reason things aren't getting done and vote accordingly on election day. A reduction in strident partisanship would be a blessing on so many levels in American life. And unless this changes, make no mistake, we will be overwhelmed and ruined by the myriad of increasingly intractable challenges we face. Without a crystal ball to know whether this approach will work, I can only admire the President for trying.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Ominous Decision: What to Do
Good contributions by readers have moved me to revisit yesterday's topic. Webfoot pointed out the lack of outcry over "activist judges" overturning long precedent for an ideological purpose. Don voiced a principle that has been in my mind too for quite awhile: that if union members are allowed to refuse to pay dues that go to political purposes should not corporate shareholders and customers be given equal consideration concerning such matters as dividends and prices?
Miriam connects us with a good source and a way to start taking action. See American University Professor of Constitutional Law Jamin Raskin explain the principles at stake in Thursday's Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to intervene in the political process with unlimited funds--and what we can do about it. To see the four-minute presentation click here.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Ominous Decision
The recent Supreme Court ruling on corporations, political advertising and free speech is highly troubling. Overturning decades of precedent and the McCain-Feingold law, the court in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission decided that corporations can spend unlimited amounts of funds for speech in favor or opposition to political candidates and may do so at any time, overturning McCain-Feingold's previous 30-day before an election rule. The 5-4 decision split along familiar lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent.
Many rulings in the past have affirmed the ability to restrict money as opposed to speech. This ruling appears to equate the two. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion also seems to consider corporations people, saying, "By taking the right to speech from some and giving it to others, the government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech..." The language thereby puts a corporate entity in the same legal class as a human person. Presumably this applies even if the corporation is primarily owned by foreign investors such as BP or even a foreign government, as with many Chinese companies. That's a cheery thought. Imagine Chinese Communist front corporations given unlimited power to run advertising for U.S. politicians who support their agendas and unlimited funds to slam those with whom they disagree.
The decision does uphold the principle of requiring the financial backers to identify themselves. But I wonder whether the ads will have to say, "Paid for by Exxon Corporation" or can run as many now do as sponsored by, "Citizens for a Better Tomorrow" or some other such innocuous-sounding group serving as cover for the real backers.
Of course the ruling will increase even further the power and influence of corporate interests over the political process. Corporate resources dwarf those of unions. But I would expect first the mud to come from activist groups like the Swift Boaters.
In a best case scenario there could be a backlash against too much corporate interference and manipulation, but recent history offers little encouragement to believe in that scenario. In a worst case scenario the actual public interest could become practically without advocacy in the major media. President Obama warns it could lead to a "stampede" of special interest government and is calling on Congress to pass some new restrictions. Of course he is right but it is hard to see that they can do much good other than to require the utmost transparency of commercial funding sources.
If not overturned in the future this further unleashing of corporate power could have far-reaching and extremely pernicious effects on the fabric of American democracy. Hopefully there will be a proliferation of media-monitoring groups like Accuracy in Media to at least try to keep the public informed about who is trying to influence them and why.
Many rulings in the past have affirmed the ability to restrict money as opposed to speech. This ruling appears to equate the two. Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion also seems to consider corporations people, saying, "By taking the right to speech from some and giving it to others, the government deprives the disadvantaged person or class of the right to use speech..." The language thereby puts a corporate entity in the same legal class as a human person. Presumably this applies even if the corporation is primarily owned by foreign investors such as BP or even a foreign government, as with many Chinese companies. That's a cheery thought. Imagine Chinese Communist front corporations given unlimited power to run advertising for U.S. politicians who support their agendas and unlimited funds to slam those with whom they disagree.
The decision does uphold the principle of requiring the financial backers to identify themselves. But I wonder whether the ads will have to say, "Paid for by Exxon Corporation" or can run as many now do as sponsored by, "Citizens for a Better Tomorrow" or some other such innocuous-sounding group serving as cover for the real backers.
Of course the ruling will increase even further the power and influence of corporate interests over the political process. Corporate resources dwarf those of unions. But I would expect first the mud to come from activist groups like the Swift Boaters.
In a best case scenario there could be a backlash against too much corporate interference and manipulation, but recent history offers little encouragement to believe in that scenario. In a worst case scenario the actual public interest could become practically without advocacy in the major media. President Obama warns it could lead to a "stampede" of special interest government and is calling on Congress to pass some new restrictions. Of course he is right but it is hard to see that they can do much good other than to require the utmost transparency of commercial funding sources.
If not overturned in the future this further unleashing of corporate power could have far-reaching and extremely pernicious effects on the fabric of American democracy. Hopefully there will be a proliferation of media-monitoring groups like Accuracy in Media to at least try to keep the public informed about who is trying to influence them and why.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Republican Wins Massachusetts Senate Race
The news services have just declared State Senator Scott Brown the winner over Attorney General Martha Coakley in the Massachusetts special election to fill the U.S. Senate seat held by Ted Kennedy from 1962 until his death in 2009. This is big news. Though Republicans have won four of the past five races for governor in the Bay State, there are no Republicans in the state's House delegation and there hasn't been a GOP Senator there since 1972. Massachusetts is widely regarded as one of the most liberal states in the union, and Barack Obama won the state by nearly 26 points in November, 2008.
There will be a lot of post mortems on the meaning of this vote. I feel there were some local factors in play here, but there are messages for the nation too. Zeroing in on local conditions, here are some points to think about.
1. Massachusetts has three times as many Democrats as Republicans. But the majority are independents. It's about 36% Democrats, 12% Republicans and 52% independent. Obviously, I feel analysis will show Brown did well among the independents. Turnout was much lower than a general election, and as a bloc Republicans typically turn out at a higher percentage than Democrats.
2. Gender was likely a factor. Only four women have ever been elected to Congress from the state, and none of these to the Senate. There were no women representatives from Massachusetts in Washington for 25 years before Niki Tsongas was elected in 2007. And she, of course, enjoyed the coat-tails of being the widow of former representative and Senator Paul Tsongas.
3. In much the same way that liberals were energized in opposition to the Bush presidency, so conservatives are against the Obama presidency and its agenda.
4. Coakley and the state party in general took the campaign for granted and got off to a slow and late start. Brown's message was clear and simple.
Now for some observations with national implications.
5. The Democrats have hurt themselves very badly by dragging the health care process on for so long. They would have done much better to resolve it quickly, however they were to do it, and get on to what the electorate cares most deeply about--jobs. Surveys showed the people in 2008 were concerned about health and wanted reform. But they felt change would happen faster than this. Something quick and simple such as extending Medicare would have been the kind of decisive and understandable step more people would have supported.
6. The Democrats have also hurt themselves by some of the deal making they did to get such as Ben Nelson and unions with extraordinarily good health insurance on board the health plan. Obama campaigned on change, and most especially on changing the way things are done in Washington. Deals like that smack of the same old same old.
7. Many people are genuinely concerned about the increase in the deficit. Although the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will reduce the deficit in the long run, many are skeptical.
8. The problems Obama inherited are becoming his own. The Republicans in congress are not interested in helping. So to the extent that things are not getting better in the economy faster the Democrats are starting to get blamed.
9. People are angry and fed up in general. It may not seem logical to vote for someone whose views are precisely what allowed the economy to crash and the health problems to get out of hand in the first place, but the Democrats (particularly in Massachusetts) are now in control and they took the brunt of the anger in this race. It will be interesting this fall to see whether such anger is directed at all incumbents or merely at Democrats.
10. Obama and the Democrats had better come up with some plans fast to create jobs. If they have any brains at all they had better get that message at least.
There will be a lot of post mortems on the meaning of this vote. I feel there were some local factors in play here, but there are messages for the nation too. Zeroing in on local conditions, here are some points to think about.
1. Massachusetts has three times as many Democrats as Republicans. But the majority are independents. It's about 36% Democrats, 12% Republicans and 52% independent. Obviously, I feel analysis will show Brown did well among the independents. Turnout was much lower than a general election, and as a bloc Republicans typically turn out at a higher percentage than Democrats.
2. Gender was likely a factor. Only four women have ever been elected to Congress from the state, and none of these to the Senate. There were no women representatives from Massachusetts in Washington for 25 years before Niki Tsongas was elected in 2007. And she, of course, enjoyed the coat-tails of being the widow of former representative and Senator Paul Tsongas.
3. In much the same way that liberals were energized in opposition to the Bush presidency, so conservatives are against the Obama presidency and its agenda.
4. Coakley and the state party in general took the campaign for granted and got off to a slow and late start. Brown's message was clear and simple.
Now for some observations with national implications.
5. The Democrats have hurt themselves very badly by dragging the health care process on for so long. They would have done much better to resolve it quickly, however they were to do it, and get on to what the electorate cares most deeply about--jobs. Surveys showed the people in 2008 were concerned about health and wanted reform. But they felt change would happen faster than this. Something quick and simple such as extending Medicare would have been the kind of decisive and understandable step more people would have supported.
6. The Democrats have also hurt themselves by some of the deal making they did to get such as Ben Nelson and unions with extraordinarily good health insurance on board the health plan. Obama campaigned on change, and most especially on changing the way things are done in Washington. Deals like that smack of the same old same old.
7. Many people are genuinely concerned about the increase in the deficit. Although the Congressional Budget Office says the plan will reduce the deficit in the long run, many are skeptical.
8. The problems Obama inherited are becoming his own. The Republicans in congress are not interested in helping. So to the extent that things are not getting better in the economy faster the Democrats are starting to get blamed.
9. People are angry and fed up in general. It may not seem logical to vote for someone whose views are precisely what allowed the economy to crash and the health problems to get out of hand in the first place, but the Democrats (particularly in Massachusetts) are now in control and they took the brunt of the anger in this race. It will be interesting this fall to see whether such anger is directed at all incumbents or merely at Democrats.
10. Obama and the Democrats had better come up with some plans fast to create jobs. If they have any brains at all they had better get that message at least.
Monday, January 18, 2010
Marie's Wedding
This past Saturday my younger daughter Marie was married in San Diego. She arranged a wonderful service in a traditional California mission style Catholic Church. We had a great reunion of family members and friends and a chance to catch up on their goings on around the country. For instance, on Sunday we had a birthday for a cousin's two-year-old, the Natoli clan toured and had lunch in Little Italy, and other cousins arrived from Ohio just in time after having to fly standby. For our first daughter Jeanette it was an opportunity to help and take care of her little sister one last time, in this instance as maid of honor. For my wife and me it was one of the happiest and proudest days of our lives.
Marie cried practically the whole way as I led her down the aisle. She has never looked more beautiful and radiant as when she and Robert held hands at the altar. They are so much in love. To me as her father it is very gratifying he is a young man with such evident good character, work habits and ambition. He also let me beat him on the golf course, demonstrating he is quite the diplomat as well.
The reception featured excellent food and a great selection of danceable tunes from the 40's through the 70's. You should have seen my wife Joan on the dance floor! Robert's brother Richard gave the finest best man wedding toasts I have ever heard. Jeanette gave a fine one too, focusing on how Marie and Robert can let their hair down with humor and just be silly, and how much fun they are to be around.
This is obviously a profound passage in the young couple's lives, and also for us as parents as well. That relationship will never be exactly the same, and that is just how it is intended to be.
The new Mr. and Mrs. are now honeymooning in Kauai.
Marie cried practically the whole way as I led her down the aisle. She has never looked more beautiful and radiant as when she and Robert held hands at the altar. They are so much in love. To me as her father it is very gratifying he is a young man with such evident good character, work habits and ambition. He also let me beat him on the golf course, demonstrating he is quite the diplomat as well.
The reception featured excellent food and a great selection of danceable tunes from the 40's through the 70's. You should have seen my wife Joan on the dance floor! Robert's brother Richard gave the finest best man wedding toasts I have ever heard. Jeanette gave a fine one too, focusing on how Marie and Robert can let their hair down with humor and just be silly, and how much fun they are to be around.
This is obviously a profound passage in the young couple's lives, and also for us as parents as well. That relationship will never be exactly the same, and that is just how it is intended to be.
The new Mr. and Mrs. are now honeymooning in Kauai.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)