In another case, in February 2007, an Apache helicopter shot and killed two Iraqi men believed to have been firing mortars, even though they made surrendering motions, because, according to a military lawyer cited in the report, “they cannot surrender to aircraft, and are still valid targets.”
[Christine] O’Donnell once told voters that her “No. 1” qualification for the Senate is an eight-day course she took at a conservative think tank in 2002.
[O'Donnell's] fellow Tea Party patriots—Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, the guy at the rally in the tricorn hat—also refer to the Constitution as if it were a holy instruction manual that was lost, but now, thanks to them, is found. And yet the reverberations go further back than Beck. The last time America elected a new Democratic president, in 1992, the Republican Party’s then-dominant insurgent group used identical language to describe the altogether different document that defined their cause and divided them from the heretics in charge: the Bible. The echoes of the religious right in O’Donnell’s speech—the Christian framework, the resurrection narrative, the “us vs. them” motif, the fixation on “values”—aren’t coincidental.From a legal perspective, there’s a case to be made that O’Donnell’s argument is inaccurate. The Constitution is a relentlessly secular document that never once mentions God or Jesus. And nothing in recent jurisprudence suggests that the past few decades of governing have been any less constitutional than the decades that preceded them. But the Tea Party’s language isn’t legal, and neither is its logic. It’s moral: right vs. wrong. What O’Donnell & Co. are really talking about is culture war.
The argument, therefore, is not about the Constitution per se. The Constitution, as George Bush put it, is "just a goddamned piece of paper" to these morons, a means to an end that would substantially and perhaps permanently alter this nation into a Taliban-ish theocracy.
Or not. The cynic in me says that the second tyrant-con artists like Beck and Palin took over, the libertinism of the ensuing nation would be rather...well, Sodom and Gommorah would have nothing on us.
The Constitution is a piece of art as well as a bundle of laws. The original "original intent" was to make the document a living testament to change, a way to acknowledge that monarchies are slow to respond to the will of the people, even a monarchy that allowed as much freedom as 18th Century England did (Magna Carta and all that stuff). It was an admission that a democratic form of governance will most certainly require flexibility, the people being fickle and capricious.
But...
Even the Founders couldn't forsee how radically the nation could change. I wonder what their objections would be to the country now? Women voting? Free blacks voting? Technology? Multinational corporations? Densely populated cities the size of entire states?
Would they get angry at, as Bill Vaughn puts it, citizens of America who would cross an ocean to fight for democracy, but not cross the street to vote (h/t Dogg, who really should restart his blog)? Would they get angrier still at the lack of decency in public discourse, how the Teabaggers are smearing a President not for his policy but for his skin color?
Well, maybe not that last one. It was not unheard in those days for a political figure to be slandered.
Or would they marvel at how out of date their very progressive, very forward-leaning document has become?
The Second Amendment...if they saw the crime statistics in densely populated areas, and how infinitely more frequent guns are used to deprive fellow citizens of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," would they insist on going back and striking that amendment?
Or the Fourth and Fifth Amendments...would they go back and insert a right to privacy, since today a man in one room, often a government official, can spy on a man way across the country with a remote camera (keeping in mind this would also make abortion de facto constitutional, and Roe v Wade would be unnecessary)?
Would they clarify that a government has the right to raise funds in any way it sees fit, or would they more closely define taxes to exclude income and to be a fairer system across the board?
In terms of legislative successes, the current session of Congress is "at least on a par with the 89th Congress" of 1965-66, said Norman Ornstein, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
But, he added, Republicans have done all they could to discredit Congress, and Democrats have failed to sell their agenda. Moreover, it will take years to fully feel the effects of the health-care law and financial regulation.
"A world dominated by bickering and epithet-throwing and bomb-tossing in Washington obscures accomplishments," Ornstein said.
That Congress passed LBJ's Medicare and Medicaid, the cornerstones of the too-short Great Society programs, and the Civil Rights Act that Rand Paul wants to repeal. It also allowed the escalation of the war in Vietnam, and probably singel-handedly brought down LBJ's presidency. It also lost 48 seats in the House and four in the Senate. A similar result this time around would mean both houses of Congress would turn Republican.
We can't let that happen.
Here's what the 111th Congress has accomplished.
In addition to healthcare reform, Wall Street accountability and the various bailout programs, and despite Republican obstructionism, we have:
Here's what we need to do, what everyone who believes in the future of this country needs to do. It doesn't matter if you live in a red state or the bluest of blue, do this. If we can steal a few seats back from the withdrawing tide, it will have been worth it.Making college loans more affordable.
The Cash for Clunkers program to help the auto industry.
New consumer protections for credit-card users.
Making it easier for women to challenge pay discrimination.
Increasing federal regulation of tobacco products.
Cracking down on waste in Pentagon weapons acquisition.
Making attacks based on sexual orientation a federal hate crime.
Giving businesses tax incentives to hire unemployed workers.
Tax credits for first-time homeowners.
We each of us needs to vote. We need to persuade five friends to vote. We need to read them this blogpost, send them a link, and convince them that voting for Democrats is the only thing that will save this country. And we need to make sure they vote for the Democrat.
It's not going to be hard to do that. The spectre of the Carl Paladinos and the Christine O'Donnells of the nation should be enough to tip the scales. Here's the follow up. Here's the real deal.
We need to get in the face of those Democrats who win, and do it endlessly, daily if necessary, and remind them that we saved their bacon, we saved their jobs, and if they don't vote a progressive, liberal agenda, we will make sure next time not to vote for them. Don't threaten to run against them (altho I might). Don't threaten to get all rowdy with them. Use the one tool they cannot offset: your vote. Your vote is the most important tool in a progressive agenda.
And if they get afraid of being "liberal", just copy this for them, which I have proudly placed at the top of my blog:
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor."
Democrats are slightly more likely to think positively about a candidate that Bill Clinton campaigns for, as opposed to one of the countless lucky ones who are getting Barack Obama to wave with them onstage these days, whether they like it or not. Obama is about to head out on a multistate stump tour; Clinton has been at it virtually nonstop all fall.
Clinton really scores among independents, while Obama scores a net minus 27, meaning 12% say they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate campaigning with the current president but 39% say his endorsement would send them voting in the other direction.
Although few Republicans indicated they'd be likely to do the ballot bidding of either Democrat, the negative "I'm voting in the other direction" is much higher for Obama (71%) than for Clinton (46%). Gallup speculates that Obama campaigning for Democrats in one area would also likely boost Republican turnout in automatic antipathy.
A lot of this is perception, of hindsight and perspective. As a friend of mine often said, "I don't miss much of the Clinton years, except the peace and prosperity."
I think the "physician v. healer" metaphor sums up the difference in a nutshell. Obama has an innate ability to perceive the heart of a question and give you a fifteen minute lecture on the history, effects and solutions to the problem under consideration. He can dissect and lecture on practically any topic, and even understand the nuances for different audiences. He sees the battlefield well, in other words, and can draw up a brilliant strategy that takes into account all the factors involved, weighing each one judiciously before pronouncing a solution.
Bill Clinton could see the problem through our eyes, and could understand what we were going through. While his answers may not have been as detailed and comprehensive as Obama's, he spoke the solutions through us, not to us. We felt like he was standing with us, not in front of us, guiding us along the path, not coazing and urging us.
Contrast the two inaugural speeches each gave upon entering the office for the first time. Here's part of Clinton's:
The American people have summoned the change we celebrate today. You have raised your voices in an unmistakable chorus. You have cast your votes in historic numbers. And you have changed the face of Congress, the Presidency, and the political process itself. Yes, you, my fellow Americans, have forced the spring. Now we must do the work the season demands. To that work I now turn with all the authority of my office. I ask the Congress to join with me. But no President, no Congress, no Government can undertake this mission alone.
My fellow Americans, you, too, must play your part in our renewal. I challenge a new generation of young Americans to a season of service: to act on your idealism by helping troubled children, keeping company with those in need, reconnecting our torn communities. There is so much to be done; enough, indeed, for millions of others who are still young in spirit to give of themselves in service, too. In serving, we recognize a simple but powerful truth: We need each other, and we must care for one another.
Now, a similar theme from Obama:
These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land, a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights. Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real. They are serious, and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this, America: They will be met.
On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord. On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.
We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit, to choose our better history, to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.
Obama speaks of statistics and in the negative. Clinton speaks of promise, of true hope. Both lecture people, particularly the young votes, but Obama comes off as a little condescending and analytical, while Clinton comes off with an invitation. Obama speaks to our intellect. Clinton speaks viscerally, evocatively.
Look around you. Look at the political dialogue and dynamic of the nation. Which do you think is going to resonate better with a frightened people?
It's interesting, I had not noted the similarity in the country's predicament between the two eras before. Obama of course inherited a far worse position than Clinton had, to be sure. That may have coloured his thinking a little.
In a recent working paper based on census data for the 100 most populous counties in the United States, Adam Seth Levine (a postdoctoral researcher in political science at Vanderbilt University), Oege Dijk (an economics Ph.D. student at the European University Institute) and I found that the counties where income inequality grew fastest also showed the biggest increases in symptoms of financial distress.
For example, even after controlling for other factors, these counties had the largest increases in bankruptcy filings.
Divorce rates are another reliable indicator of financial distress, as marriage counselors report that a high proportion of couples they see are experiencing significant financial problems. The counties with the biggest increases in inequality also reported the largest increases in divorce rates.
Another footprint of financial distress is long commute times, because families who are short on cash often try to make ends meet by moving to where housing is cheaper — in many cases, farther from work. The counties where long commute times had grown the most were again those with the largest increases in inequality.
The middle-class squeeze has also reduced voters’ willingness to support even basic public services. Rich and poor alike endure crumbling roads, weak bridges, an unreliable rail system, and cargo containers that enter our ports without scrutiny. And many Americans live in the shadow of poorly maintained dams that could collapse at any moment.
Posts
All Comments
