Republican Ideological Purity Is the Democrats' Great Opportunity

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday March 27, 2012 · 9:13 AM PDT

2012/03/27 · 09:13

Katrina Vanden Heuvel and Charles Lane of the Washington Post have drawn a bright line around what ails this country in two recent columns. Van Der Heuvel's is about the source of our moral crisis, while Lane's is an object lesson in why ideological purity -- and the frenzy it sometimes awakens -- can backfire on the very people that endorse it.

First, let's look at Lane's enlightening reminder, his "be careful what you wish for" lesson. In his article, Lane sketches out the history leading to the 2003 Supreme Court decision, Lawrence v. Texas, in which Justice Anthony Kennedy did the unthinkable: He sided with the liberal members of the court to overturn Texas' anti-sodomy law. What led to this case was a fanatical pursuit of sustaining a law that never should have been enacted, one that banned private consensual sex if it was homosexual in nature.

As laudable, from a religious, moralistic perspective, the Texas law might have been -- for its narrow constituency -- its clearly unconstitutional overreach set up a cataclysmic event, the granting of gay rights by the Supreme Court. This in turn set up the more recent successes for gays around gay marriage. In fact, one could easily place the passage of the Texas anti-gay law as the beginning of the march to broader gay rights. How beautifully ironic.

The implications from Lane's cautionary tale are as illuminating as they are refreshing, not to mention, reason for hope. More on that later. Now on to Vanden Heuvel. Her column speaks to the "moral crisis" in America as being cut out of whole cloth by the Republican Party. Here she makes it stark:

The real crisis of public morality in the United States doesn’t lie in the private decisions Americans make in their lives or their bedrooms; it lies at the heart of an ideology — and a set of policies — that the right-wing has used to batter and browbeat their fellow Americans.
They dress these policies up sometimes, give them catchy titles like Rep. Paul Ryan’s “Path to Prosperity.” But they never cease to imbue them with the kind of moral decisions that ought to make anyone furious. Ryan’s latest budget really is case in point. It’s a plan that says that increases in defense spending are so essential, that massive tax cuts for the wealthy are so necessary, that we must pay for them by ripping a hole in the social safety net. The poor need Medicaid to pay for medicine and treatment for their families? We care, we really do, but the wealthy need tax cuts more. Food stamps the only thing standing between your children and starvation? Listen, we feel your pain. We get it. But we’ve got more important things to spend money on. Like a new yacht for that guy who only has one yacht.

There, she put it in a nutshell -- an apt metaphor. The Republican Party is not about freedom, they're about how ideological purity comes at the expense of freedom, that freeing the individual from regulation and taxation comes at the expense of the least of us, the ones who would benefit from community and what community action can bring to the citizens of that community.

By the way, the number of citizens thrust into that growing cohort known as "the least of us" is alarming, making it all the more inconceivable that the Republicans would push now for changes in tax law and budget priorities that would increase poverty and weaken the safety net originally provided to alleviate it. But that's exactly what the Republicans are doing.

From Lane's thesis -- be careful what you wish for -- and Vanden Heuvel's declaration -- that the current moral crisis stems from Republican ideology becoming a moralistic feeding frenzy -- we can derive a hopeful scenario: The Republicans seem hellbent on self-destruction in an election year that seemed to be one of the largest openings for Republican gains in a decade but now seems one of the biggest opportunities for Democrats to define themselves as the party of all the citizens -- the disinclination of the 1% notwithstanding.

Republicans, driven evermore to the right by tea-party types, the Koch brothers, the NRA, Rick Santorum's haughty rhetoric, and Rush Limbaugh's naughty rhetoric will, it's now likely, so fabulously overreach that they'll achieve what they wish for: an ideological purity that attracts the well-established 28% of America I like to refer to as George W. Bush's dead-enders, you know, those frightening people that considered Bush an exemplary president.

Who doesn't this thin coalition attract? Just about everybody else. Their only cause for hope is that Democrats might fail -- as they often do -- at their messaging and that what's left of the Reagan Democrats and the blue-collar Republicans still fall for the line that individualism should trump community even if it reduces many pocketbooks in America to a frighteningly barren place. It may be empty, but it's my pocketbook!

I'm with those who believe Democratic principles are hollow structures compared to their grander architecture under FDR, Truman, JFK, and Johnson, and though a supporter of Bill Clinton, I do hold him responsible for contributing to the hollowing-out process. But even Clinton drew the line when it came to decimating the middle class to increase the prerogatives of the wealthy. He may have even crafted the best state he could under the circumstances.

But the catastrophe awaiting the U.S. if the Republican dream survives its spiral into purity is too horrible to contemplate. So let's pull together, Democrats, stay on message, and craft that message positively to take advantage of the stumble the Republicans are currently taking. Let's give them their "be careful what you wish for" moment in 2012.

The American Human

Message to GOP: Dance with the People That Brung Ya

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday March 22, 2012 · 7:11 AM PDT

2012/03/22 · 07:11

Matt Miller of the Washington Post wrote the essential column on the new fiscal 2013 budget proposal of conservative darling Paul Ryan. It's entitled "Paul Ryan's Budget to Nowhere," and it nails the key fabrication of the budget's premise:

“Because we can’t keep doing everything for everybody in this country,” [Ryan] said. “We should trim down a lot of other stuff we’re doing.”
This was unintentionally revealing. Ryan has sounded this theme before. “We are at a moment,” Ryan said in his State of the Union response in 2011, “where if government’s growth is left unchecked and unchallenged . . . we will transform our social safety net into a hammock, which lulls able-bodied people into lives of complacency and dependency.”

But what hammock is Ryan talking about? The only thing slated to grow the size of government in the years ahead is the retirement of the baby boomers. The doubling of the number of people eligible for Social Security and Medicare is what is driving all the increase in federal spending — along with the spiral in system-wide health costs, which afflicts Medicare along with all privately financed health care.

If those programs for seniors haven’t been a “hammock” until now, simply doubling the number of people eligible for them can’t turn them into a “hammock” tomorrow. When it comes to fiscal policy, we have an aging population challenge, and a health-cost challenge. We don’t have a “hammock” challenge.

That's the key to understanding just what the GOP attack on American citizens is: It's not what it purports to be. Most GOPers repeat the meme that "we will transform our social safety net into a hammock" when what they really want is to take away the services that have existed for generations and have been paid for by the very participants that need them and have earned them at exactly the time they are set to receive them -- retirement. Retirement may indeed be a "hammock," but it's intended to be. It's meant to be that moment when the body, usually already starting to fail a bit, gets to rest, refresh and be attended to after forty years or more of labor.

And this moment in time has been paid for by a lifetime of social security and Medicare taxes as part of a social contract: You pay into the fund, and when it's your turn, you get to rest, relax and enjoy what time you've got left. What does the Republican Party want, an extra decade of work, often in pain and diminished capacity -- especially for those who've worked with their hands and their backs -- just before the folks croak? In a word, yes.

Why? So that we can cut taxes on the wealthy even though we've been cutting taxes on the wealthy for the better part of thirty years? Yes.

So that we can continue to fund wars that have been sucking our blood and treasure without apparent success or efficacy or real rationale? Yes.

Heaven forbid we should cut defense spending in order to meet our contractual obligations to our citizens.

I could go on, but this isn't meant to be a line-by-line analysis of Ryan's budget, which in any event is impossible because there is no line-by-line there anyway. As with many GOP proposals there's just an "end Medicare and Medicaid as we know it and while we're at it raise eligibility age on all social programs and change the COLA calculations so that benefits go down even though those doing the actual math point out that this actually raises costs" proposal that protects defense spending, massively cuts taxes on the wealthy and corporations while not spelling out the other areas of cuts required to get us anywhere near a balanced budget.

No, Ryan's proposal isn't a serious one, it's just a bomb being lobbed into the the public sphere to set up the messaging of Ryan's cohort. Pure and simple. That's his job. Conservatives can now cite Ryan's plan as if it's an authoritative study upon which to draw. It's not, but that won't stop the Jon Kyles, Tom Coburns, and John Boehners from saying things like "Paul Ryan's the first Congressman to have the courage to admit that our present spending is just not sustainable." Right, it isn't, especially if we continue to cut off the sources of revenue we've been using for taking care of our citizens.

Matt Miller points to what really happening: The baby boomers are going to retire in record numbers at a time when we as a nation are failing to control healthcare costs. In other advanced nations, populations are aging, as well. They are, however, more prepared to deal with the crisis because they've already made the commitment to single-payer healthcare and are thus in better control of costs. Only in personal-responsibility-obsessed America are we definitely screwed. Why? Because even though our citizens have been paying into the system all of our lives, personal responsibility ends at the legislature's door.

To be fair, I need to mention a key exception among advanced nations: the austerity-crazed Tories in the UK who are wreaking havoc on their economy with lower taxes, savage cuts, and plans to privatize its reasonably well-functioning healthcare system. Currently the Tory experiment has thrown the UK back into recession and actually expanded deficits, as most non-partisan economists warned would happen. But that's another, if compelling, story.

No one among the U.S. citizenry are asking for a bigger, better hammock. They're only asking for the hammock they paid for. But the perilous experiment in the UK might be pointing to a greater truth, that trimming government spending while cutting taxes will bankrupt the country, leading to a downward spiral of services to the public and protection of the infrastructure that has underpinned the economy to begin with.

Once the elderly lose their autonomy and their healthcare protection, someone has to pay for it, and historically that's been the children. When that happens the whole society will begin to spiral down, as housing costs and medical bills are borne by subsequent generations. Then the middle class, already under assault, will be decimated.

Only the wealthy will be left standing. Hummh. I'm beginning to understand Paul Ryan now. I wish millions of so-called middle-class, blue-collar Republicans would figure this out in time. Sorry to be cynical, but fat chance.

The American Human

War Doesn't Work Anymore

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday March 12, 2012 · 8:17 AM PDT

2012/03/12 · 08:17

To posit that war, as a tactic, doesn't "work" anymore doesn't mean to suggest that war has worked in the past. It has never been a positive proposition, period.

However, I concede that engaging in wars to stop the likes of Napoleon and Hitler or, in our most famous case, to gain independence from Britain, have been apparently necessary. That "success" in those wars came at such a cost cannot be understated. Also, history has a way of distorting itself: The United States required a war to rid itself of British rule, while Canada gained its freedom peacefully. Which country was right? Did we really need war in that case?

We can't know because our cause succeeded, and our history supports our mythology.

However, our most recent wars, since Korea, have been dismal failures. Korea remains divided some sixty years later. Vietnam was, historically, one of the most violent and expensive wars in our history, and yet, what did it accomplish besides killing millions? Nothing. Our Iraq and Afghanistan adventures have contributed mightily to our long-term debt and have lowered our standing in the world. There is little evidence to suggest good outcomes in either theater. The Iraq War strengthened the Shia, increasing Iranian influence in the region, and Afghanistan has again proved itself the destroyer of empires while our efforts there succeeded mainly in heightening militancy in neighboring Pakistan. When we leave -- and leave we will and soon -- we'll leave an Afghanistan barely better off than before, if at all. Well done, America!

In limited military actions, we have had some successes. Our belated efforts in Bosnia and Kosovo halted ethnic cleansing and led to stability that holds to this day. That model may have helped end the bloodshed in Libya, though we don't know what the outcome will inevitably be. I can't fault the effort, however. And I'd be remiss if I didn't speak to the apparent success of the Persian Gulf War. What tempers me there is that, years later, Saddam was up to his usual tricks. Also, diplomacy was not seriously tried. Could Kuwait have been freed without violence? It's now unknowable.

What has to be acknowledged is the overwhelming arc of history and how it speaks loudly to the obsolescence of war. We needed to help Libya because Qaddafi engaged in an obsolete tactic, just as we may need to intervene in Syria because al-Assad is doing the same. I can reject war and violence as a tactic while conceding that in its waning days as an option there are times when military action is still inevitable.

Obviously, the saber-rattling concerning Iran is what brings this discussion to mind today. The situation there is tailor-made for a diplomatic solution driven by effective sanctions, sanctions that are clearly biting. If we attack Iran, we strengthen the mullahs. If we don't, we undermine them. It's as clear a case as could be for not resorting to war.

We will continue perhaps for a century or so to reach for the gun rather than the telephone, even though stable relations among the remaining great powers -- the U.S., Europe, China, Russia, and Japan -- will steadily reduce the need for large militaries and massive defense spending. It will also reduce the number of interventions and police actions that annoyingly continue to spring up.

Someday, Russia, China, and the U.S. will run out of client states whose dictatorships we foolishly support, and when we do, proxy struggles will come to an end. That's when peace can finally start to reign and the higher calling -- to end disease, hunger, and poverty in the blighted areas of the globe -- will at last be heard.

Until that time, governments and political parties need to come to accept the pleasant notion that war is and should be a vanishing option. It simply doesn't work anymore.

It's impossible not to end on a frightening, dystopian note: War can only become obsolete if we solve global warming, prevent large-scale famine, and avoid conflicts over shrinking resources such as oil, metals, and water. If we can't deal with that, human history may seal itself in a final epic struggle that historians might not be around to record.

What a dismal outcome that would be. Let mankind know that moment and realize that only by working together do we survive these monumental challenges.

The American Human

Calling You Out, Conservatives: You Suck at Sex!

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday March 01, 2012 · 10:38 AM PST

2012/03/01 · 10:38

I mean it. It's clear from your leaders, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, Roy Blunt, (don't make me go on!) that all of you hate sex and must really, really suck at it. You're going to have to work overtime to prove it to me or the freaking world, for that matter, so get busy. Your credibility is at risk. Clearly, you hate sex -- and women -- so much that your sexual acumen must be frighteningly sub-par. I assume, also, that your women must be gravely and deeply, if quietly, disappointed in all of you. I feel for them. I assume, since you live in a father-figure, male-dominated, authoritarian, paternalistic world, that it's not your women's fault. They're off the hook. You're not!!

I'm right about this. Here's proof: Picture any conservative Republican, especially James Dobson, or Randall Terry, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, (don't make me go on!) having sex. See?

I really enjoyed this article at Talking Points Memo about the Blunt amendment, which will be debated today in the Senate. It was put forth by Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and its purpose is to provide anyone, anywhere a "conscience exception" on religious and moral grounds allowing them to refuse to provide birth control or other women's health services as provided for in the Affordable Care Act.

Top Republicans are working overtime to mask palpable concern within their party over a Thursday Senate vote to roll back an Obama administration rule requiring most employers to provide workers with contraceptive coverage in their health benefits.
Yet despite a growing sense that the GOP has veered into politically dangerous territory, a full-scale retreat would embarrass the party, and alienate a powerful segment of its conservative base. And that’s left Republicans little choice but to press ahead, illustrating the dangers they’ll face if election year politicking turns further from the economy toward culture war fights that voters thought were settled decades ago.

So, all you conservative women out there, I'm sorry. Your guys are setting you up. No sex for you!

And liberal, otherwise healthy women out there -- by that I guess I mean my tribe -- we're going to fight for your right (and conservative women's right, too) to have lots of healthy, guilt-free and worry-free sex whenever you want. We stand with you in this dark hour.

I was prompted to deliver this declaration after reading this Pandagon blog post by Amanda Marcotte, who, being a women, actually has standing on the question:

I realize talking about and defending female sexual pleasure is a hard thing to do. Our society still has a ton of shame around the topic. But that's what this fight is about. It's not even really about contraception, per se. That's why the Republican candidates, when asked about contraception, actually answered the question as if John King had said, "Where do you fall on the subject of women having sex without your explicit permission first?" (I'm serious; their answers about "out of wedlock" births and the like make way more sense if you substitute the phrase "unauthorized sex" for "contraception".) We can only win this if we have a clean fight about it. And that means tackling the question of sex directly, and not chewing around the edges or worse, building our defenses around women who could theoretically be celibate but still on the pill.

You're right, Amanda. (h/t Jay Ackroyd) I'll join you in this fight.

Hey, Rick Santorum, I got news for you. I was raised Catholic and attended Catholic high school and a Catholic university. My early sexual experiences were all with Catholic girls and women. In my own little world -- back in 1965 -- my first experience with sex, with a lovely Catholic girl, was mythic, legendary. Of course, it wasn't: I was a pimply-faced, sixteen-year-old kid who didn't know what he was doing. But it was sex, and it was wonderful, I've never forgotten it, I've rolled it around in my mind for almost fifty years, and I'm grateful to the young lady for having favored me.

There's one thing I'll never forget. After I had sex for the first time, I thought about the Church's view, that my mythic, legendary, now-I'm-a-man, sexual act that felt soooo good condemned me to hellfire and suffering for eternity. Guess what? I mulled it over and decided that the Church's view on sex was a crock. It was no time before the whole house of cards came down. The Catholic Church, on all its levels, blew, and blew big time.

The Catholic Church's views on sex destroyed my faith! Whoopee!

I've spent all my life undergoing what might best be described as the Great Untwisting, a process of learning how to enjoy sex without feeling guilt, fear, or shame. Thanks a lot, asshole Catholics, dominated by celibate men! (Warning to little boys: not so celibate!) After years of diligence, I've done it (mostly, no thanks to pricks like you, Santorum), and I can look back with satisfaction and gratitude for the sex life I've had. I do regret that I was a Neanderthal who rarely thought about the expense the women were bearing so that I didn't have 85 kids. Sorry, I was a knucklehead. And a homophobe, and a dirty little boy, and a loser who said rosaries for penance in the back pews for my early concupiscence. Luckily, I got over it. I'm better now.

So, thanks, Amanda Marcotte, and all the women that put up with us cretins until we finally got a little wisdom. And to hell with all you conservative males, and I'm not sorry you suck hard at sex. It's your women that deserve my sympathy.

Update. I can't help but share this post (better left undiscovered, but...) with you. This guy must really suck hard at sex. These are the losers we should be fighting, right, Amanda? Thought so.

Update 2. The Blunt amendment failed, 51-48, with three blue dogs joining in support. Holy crap.

The American Human

Religion: The Heart of the Debate?

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday February 24, 2012 · 7:53 AM PST

2012/02/24 · 07:53

As religion overtakes the presidential race on the Republican side, it threatens the national debate as we move closer to November. How long Barack Obama can avoid the furor is anybody's guess. For now, we'll have to put up with the wild accusations from Romney, Santorum, and Gingrich. Ron Paul doesn't seem to roll that way. Libertarianism has enough to distinguish itself without going all "Jesus is my savior" on us.

Guiding question for our discussion: Did the universe begin approximately 15 billion years ago for the express purpose of culminating in the one glorious birth of an individual named Jesus in Galilee 2000 years ago, one we should regard as saving the human race and to be followed and praised for all eternity?

Nice story, but, uh, no.

As Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich mud-wrestle to show who's more committed to Christ than the other -- Isn't it odd that most of the discussion is not about saving mankind but about whether women should have sex without being required to bear a child? -- the Republican Party reverts from a group of white men who are obsessed with lowering taxes on the wealthy into a group of white men obsessed with girly parts and what not to do with them.

Yeah, uh, can't wait till these guys get in charge. And I'm a white man. Imagine how the women feel. The Republicans are uninterested in researching that. Just ask Darrell Issa, whose congressional panel of experts on women's issues contained no women.

Curiously though, what's the math here? Cede the women's vote, the black vote, the Latino vote, the LBGT vote, the youth vote, the Northeastern vote, the West Coast vote to the Democrats, while the Republicans go after, uh, who's left? Oh yeah, Southern white Christians and as many freaked out seniors as they can muster. That's a strategy to rely on.

Karl Rove must be soiling himself. But I digress.

Verbal rundown:

Mitt Romney--"Unfortunately, possibly because of the people the president hangs around with, and their agenda, their secular agenda – they have fought against religion."

Translation: Men ought to control what women do with their icky parts.

Rick Santorum--"The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. And if he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology, that’s fine. But it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.”

Translation: Men ought to control what women do with their icky parts.

Newt Gingrich--"Across the planet today, the forces of religious repression are on the march and this administration has intellectually disarmed. It has morally disarmed. It is incapable of describing what threatens us..."

Translation: I want to fundamentally, literally, transform the way men control women's icky parts, period.

Ron Paul--"I will use my constitutional authority as President to stop the enforcement of all regulations relating to ObamaCare, including the new HHS regulations forcing all employers, even religious or church-affiliated ones, to provide coverage for contraceptives and RU-486 as part of their health insurance plans."

Translation: I'm not that interested in women's icky parts. I just want women to pay for their own goddam pills. Oh, and no abortion.

James Carville must be going into convulsions. 1992: It's the economy, stupid. 2012: It's the uterus, stupid.

No, folks, it's the stupid, stupid.

Update. Mitt Romney's tack toward the far right side of the religion/contraception debate doesn't seem to be working:

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney may have had the best performance on the debate stage in Arizona last night, but Thursday morning wasn't as great -- Romney dropped to 39 percent in Rasmussen's nightly tracking poll of a potential matchup between he and President Obama nationally. Obama got 49 percent, giving him a ten point lead. The Ras tracking numbers use 500 autodial interviews a night and average the results over three days.

This turn in the debate is, unsurprisingly, doing badly among women:

Unfortunately for him [Romney], it seems he’s still suffered a precipitous drop in support among women voters.
Quinnipiac University released new numbers on Wednesday that showed a troubling trend for the former governor. In three months, he’d gone from a positive split on favorability with women (33 - 30) to a substantially negative one (30 - 45) in Quinnipiac’s numbers.

Keep up the good work, guys. (Thanks, TPM)

The American Human

Misunderestimating the Constitution: Contraception Edition

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 16, 2012 · 2:13 PM PST

2012/02/16 · 14:13

The First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The current debate about the federal government's right to design regulations concerning contraception and women's access to it suffers from a few misconceptions. These misconceptions are widespread. The GOP isn't reinventing the wheel of misinterpretation of the First Amendment, though it's painfully obvious that they've grabbed the mistaken view and run with it, suiting their purposes just fine.

For the sake of clarity, let's state at the offset that there is a contradiction in the clauses in the Amendment, known as the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. One is slightly at war with each other, which opens the way to misinterpretation. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,..." is very clear. There shall be no state-adopted religion, which implies rather clearly that no religion may be favored. The result is that government must operate from a secular point of view.

When President Obama, through his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, issued the regulation that all businesses must offer insurance that covered contraception without co-pay, it could have been expected that there would be little controversy, since the regulations were similar to those in effect under the Bush administration and echoed the law in 28 states.

It's appropriate that churches and their affiliated activities that are directly connected to their congregations be exempted. Forcing churches to violate their tenets in the very course of the practice of their religion would be improper, although the Supreme Court had no problem banning peyote from Native-American religious practices. So there is precedent for criminalizing religious ritual (see Employment Division v. Smith). Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, saying that "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." [my emphasis] And Scalia is a Catholic.

The Establishment Clause in the First Amendment makes it clear that the federal government may not apply the religious beliefs of Catholicism in crafting laws or regulations. That would violate the Establishment Clause. Here's how Wikipedia explains it:

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

Clearly, then, the government has a right to ignore the canon law of the Catholic Church when issuing regulations. It can, however, accommodate the religious views of a church when it deems it prudent.

I think we can agree that requiring businesses that are operating in the public sphere and employing workers of multiple religious heritages to provide contraception without cost is well within the Constitutional prerogatives of the federal government and is in keeping with the Establishment Clause. A case can be made that the Constitution requires the Obama administration to take the position it originally did.

Obama then confronted the expected backlash from the Catholic Church, driven in large part by the U. S. Council of Catholic Bishops, by offering an accommodation: Catholic hospitals and agencies operating in the public sphere would not have to provide these preventive services to women, but all insurance companies would be charged with the obligation of including these services cost-free in all their packages, including ones purchased by Catholic hospitals and agencies.

This is very much in keeping with the Free Exercise Clause. Catholics can remain free of using or promulgating the use of contraceptives. Thus they avoid what, in their eyes, is sin. And women's health choices would not be weakened.

This wasn't good enough for the bishops, again not unexpectedly so. It is, however, the best the bishops could have expected. Even the head of the Catholic Health Association, Sister Carol Keehan, was satisfied:

The Catholic Health Association is very pleased with the White House announcement that a resolution has been reached that protects the religious liberty and conscience rights of Catholic institutions. The framework developed has responded to the issues we identified that needed to be fixed.

In conclusion, Americans who understand their Constitution should all concur that President Obama hit the sweet spot between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. It's no wonder that the vast majority of Americans (and Catholics) agree.

It's a crying shame that the bishops -- and, remarkably, the Republican Party and its presidential candidates -- are on the wrong side of this issue. Their misinterpretation and disregard for the First Amendment is very telling. The Republican Party may pay a price for such backward thinking. As for the bishops, a true-life good ole boys' club if there ever was one, they can take a hike. Their congregation, 98% of whom admit to using contraception at some point in their lives, already have.

The American Human

Mitt Romney's Dilemma: The Road to the Nomination Runs through Bats**tcrazyville

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Monday February 13, 2012 · 1:37 PM PST

2012/02/13 · 13:37

Since Mitt Romney's campaign -- and its success or failure -- is constantly being judged by whether or not he is electable, inevitable, establishment, conservative enough, or capable of exciting enthusiasm, we end up being mesmerized by the whys and hows of his failure to yet be coronated as the true presumptive Republican nominee.

This incessant questioning has thrown fairy dust in front of our eyes, so we can't see the obvious. I offer this hypothesis: Mitt Romney is considered the most electable -- even by the Republican base -- precisely because he is not as delusional as his Republican base. Which begs the question: How then can he win the nomination?!

Beats the hell out of me. All the movers and shakers of the Republican party want the most electable Republican to be the nominee, as that's the way the game has been played heretofore. That's why they're called the establishment candidate. These candidates play by the rules, wait their turn, and act like nice Republican players by following the Reagan Rule, which states a Republican never attacks a fellow Republican.

That this establishment road to the nomination has delivered the one-term elder Bush, the thrashed Bob Dole, and the pretty-well-thrashed John McCain hasn't dimmed the party's enthusiasm for the tried-and-true way. Parenthetically, the one two-term Republican presidency since Ronald Reagan was the marginally elected George W. Bush, who has become the Republican's He Who Must Not Be Named.

Yet here we are again, with an "electable" establishment Ken Doll slip-sliding his way to becoming the establishment nominee. So why is he having so much trouble getting there?

Here is the utter core of the math: Mitt Romney is the electable candidate precisely because he's not as conservative as his base requires him to be. Were he actually conservative enough to be the darling of a quivering, enthusiastic base ready to die for him in the election, he'd have to be what liberals affectionately -- and rightly -- refer to as batshit crazy.

What have all the not-Romneys -- Bachman, Perry, Cain, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul -- been? Yeah, batshit crazy. And why has the mantle now fallen, most convincingly, on Rick Santorum? He's the most levelheaded-sounding of the residents from batshitcrazyville. But for sure, he's from there all right.

He's even got some of that Ken Doll healthy look, although I have yet to see the Sweater Vest Ken Doll on the shelves.

Who would have thought that the rock and the hard place between which Mitt Romney finds himself would be the crazy base on one side and the not-really-conservative-wink-wink-nudge-nudge on the other, where he needs to be to win the election? In this mixed-up mess of things, the base is itself squeezed. The same people who demand him to be "severely conservative" also demand that he be electable. Mutually exclusive qualities, I'm afraid.

So what's Mitt to do? So far, it's been to smile, say he's the most conservative person ever, not put forth any clear policy directives that would let people know what he really thinks, or say anything that sheds light on who he really is -- especially about his Mormonism -- and instead say wildly fantastical things about Barack Obama as a way to fire up his base, you know the one that want's him all in and not all in at the same time. And to add insult to injury, he's abandoned the Reagan Rule big-time and attacked his not-Romney adversaries mercilessly, destroying them and driving his own unfavorables through the roof.

There was a moment just after securing the nomination in 2008 that John McCain looked at the polls and said, "I'm screwed." He knew he was establishment, and that it wasn't enough. So in his desperation he went for the loopiest running mate he could find, Sarah Palin. How'd that work out? (They're even making a movie about it now.)

Let's say Romney wins the nomination -- not a given -- but let's say he does. Who does he pick for a running mate? Marco Rubio? Not bad. A Latino (actually a Cuban-American, a real difference). Great for Florida, but how does that fly in Arizona? Texas? Any border state? Iowa? Okay, Rick Santorum. That's going to win over the women's vote (hint: not!). How about Paul Ryan? The Republicans won the seniors vote in 2010 with Mediscare. You can't do that in 2012 with Ryan on the ticket.

Anyway I look at it, Mitt Romney's screwed. He's too sane for the nomination, or to win it he has to tatoo "batshit crazy" somewhere on his body and accidentally Tweet photos. If he does that, he's unelectable. Oh, well. That's his problem, not mine.

The American Human

What Are My Policy Positions?

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 07, 2012 · 11:30 AM PST

2012/02/07 · 11:30

I spend a fair amount of time at this blog criticizing policymakers, especially the Republicans. It's easy to criticize Republicans, mostly because for the last three years, they actually don't have any policies, other than attacking anything that Barack Obama tries to do. But I just read a post by Ezra Klein at WaPo, and he, instead of attacking Mitt Romney for his gaffes, decided to attack his policy positions. Good one, Ezra.

So, I thought, since I concur, what exactly are my policy positions? Here are some of them, as clearly as I can express them. Mind you, I have no influence on public policy other than this modest blog, but all of us do well to examine and speak our beliefs clearly. So, here:

—Taxes: I believe in raising them for all rate levels except those below the median income level. How far below is hard for me to establish, but let's say no increases for those below 200% of the poverty level. That guideline would establish that rates for a family of four making less than $46,100 should get no tax increase. All tax credits for the working poor should be maintained. This means that essentially the Bush tax cuts should be allowed to expire in their entirety. We might want to phase that in to prevent a shock to the economy, but the goal is to get back to the pre-Bush rates. Then, all unnecessary subsidies to oil, gas, and ethanol should be ended, as well as farm subsidies. Finally, the estate tax would be restored to pre-Bush levels, obviously, and the capital gains tax can remain at 15%, as far as I care, because that would really help middle-income retirees, especially those with only 401(k)s. The trick would be to eliminate the loopholes that allow the kind of abuse that let people like Mitt Romney to get paid in capital gains and thus avoid the earned-income rates. That could be accomplished with a Buffett Rule. I would also not be opposed to simply taxing capital gains as income, similar to interest income.

—End our wars ASAP. We're nearly out of Iraq, and Afghanistan is winding down. Wind it down faster, even faster than Leon Panetta just announced. Also, cut off aid to Pakistan and let them know that we favor democracies like India who are our actual allies. I know, we're freaked about Pakistan having the bomb. They use one or allow one to get used, they get blown up. Let them know that through quiet, non-hysterical channels. Also, stop with the warlike talk on Iran. Negotiate, negotiate. Talk to everyone. Talk to Chavez, Castro, Kim Jong Un, anyone. Look at what's happening in Burma. Progress can be made without bombs. We can't blow EVERYBODY up. Diplomacy works.

—If we get our revenues up and our defense spending down, use the money available for social safety-net programs. Go to a single-payer, Medicare-style program for everybody. Period. Increase payroll taxes on people and businesses up to the amount they formerly either paid or received in benefits. Use that money for expanded Medicare. Make Social Security solvent forever by raising the threshold for taxation. That's an easy fix. Also, Medicaid and the Veterans' health system should be folded into the greater Medicare system and with it the funding sources. Even the military's current health system can join Medicare.

—Also, I'm both a Keynesian and an infrastructure freak. I lived in Japan and have been back there twice in the past decade. I know what good infrastructure looks like and how it's paid for. It can really help drive economic growth. I also believe in SUPERTRAINS like Atrios of Eschaton, and like Atrios, I believe in walkable cities. He lives in Philly, a town I visit a lot, and it's walkable with reasonably good local transit. I live in the Bay Area, where transit is pretty sucky. I chose to live in Sonoma, a small town where I can walk to shops, bars, restaurants, my gym, library, you name it. I get in my car mostly if I'm leaving town. There's a couple of exceptions, but mostly that's the way I feel about transportation. I lived in the Netherlands back in the early 70s, and I never forgot what it was like to get on a bicycle freeway to go to work, or to hop between their numerous local villages on a Saturday afternoon. Have bike, will travel was my motto. It was perfect for Tokyo. Not good for hilly towns, I suppose.

—It's beyond controversial to believe in green energy. The entire country should not only be installing solar panels on every available rooftop, but we should also be building recharging stations as fast as we can. I myself bought a VW Jetta TDI, which gets over 50mph on the highway and up to 44mph in mixed driving. But my real strategy is to wait until I'm off warranty to convert the engine to biodiesel, which should be available at every recharging station, as well. I'm also a proponent of nuclear energy and think the Nevadans are being hysterical about Yucca Mountain. But I don't live there, so it's easy for me to say. I'm also for increased hydro-electric, wind, wave, tidal, any alternative to fossil fuel. I'm for declaring a total end to mountain-top removal. I'm not against fracking, but it's got to be better regulated. Right now I don't trust the frackers. If trust can be established, fine. I hate tar sands oil and wouldn't support anything that increases its development. We can do an end-around with green energy. What if it costs more? No problem. What we would gain in lower healthcare costs and general healthiness would go far in equalizing costs. If we jump in headfirst, I bet we'd be surprised at how far we can go with alternative sources and how far down the costs can be driven.

—We need to establish a rational trade policy with China. We don't have to be afraid of them. If they're dumping solar panels, place punitive tariffs until they wise up. Don't worry about a trade war. They need us more than we need them, and that's ultimately true. As for the yuan, it had better be properly valued, or we get tough with them on it. How? Here I draw a blank. I don't know how we pressure a country to free its currency. Demand that it allow the market to set the rate?

—I heard Ralph Nader on Yahoo! TV the other day making a case for how Democrats could take it to the Republicans in 2012 and win the election, even retake the House. One of his recommendations was pushing for raising the minimum wage, which he said was more than $2.00 less in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in the late 60s. I agree -- that it would be an effective form of economic stimulus -- and that it would be good politics. So put me down as an advocate of a true living wage for all. Raising the federal minimum to over $10 won't produce any millionaires, but it might lift some out of poverty.

I could go on, as there are many more policy prescriptions of value. But this post is long as it is. I'll review and revisit this theme again soon. In the meantime, let me know where you agree or disagree. It's very helpful.

The American Human

Do We Live in a Meritocracy? Do We Want to?

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 01, 2012 · 7:57 AM PST

2012/02/01 · 07:57

Yes, we live in a meritocracy of sorts. Do we want to live there, or is there somewhere better? Because I read the economics blogs -- including the inevitable libertarian economics blogs one confronts nowadays -- I'm now finally realizing that the intersection of politics and economics is also the intersection where many of life's questions get posed. Add the morality portion, and it's game on!

The question of the value and nature of a meritocratic system is as good as any frame for understanding the basis of political stances. Whether you're a socialist, liberal, mongrel, conservative, or libertarian can be expressed or signaled, if you will, by how you view our society in terms of what one "deserves."

Libertarian: Stop asking for anything to be done for you. Good luck, dog!

Conservative: Don't expect me to use any of my resources for your opportunities. Tax is theft! Regulation is a disincentive! Pay for your own opportunities. If you don't have any, why are you looking at me? Blame God.

Mongrel: Life is life. I'm a moderate, so what are you talking about? Why should I care? I'm going to Burger King for a chicken sandwich. Meritocracy? Who you kidding? I have no hard-and-fast views, maybe that's it. Sure, we live in a meritocracy, I suppose. Have you asked Joe Lieberman?

Liberal: I look at outcomes. I believe in better outcomes, regardless of morality. That means I will help those that are "undeserving" because even improvements on the margins are better than having our shining city on the hill split between gated communities in the suburbs and gated front doors in the inner cities. Create opportunities in education, open access to healthcare, and use policy to create more opportunity.

Socialist: Societies get to choose how they want to advance the culture in their milieux. and I choose to advance as diverse a population as I can. A strong safety net, even at the expense of the well-off, is a public good and, as such, should be supported for the benefit of the entire public. Oh, and while I was raised Christian, I actually noticed Christ's policy positions, which clearly state that man helps fellow man.

Anarchist (I almost forgot): The system, meritocracy or not, doesn't work, so I choose to blow stuff up.

As with any simplification, there are inconsistencies. A conservative would say they look at outcomes, too, it's just they prefer to spend money only on their own. Libertarians aren't much different, but they like to stress that freedom is the basis of choice and that government by its nature restricts choice. The difference might be that conservatives like government restricting choice, as long as it follows conservative principles.

The difference between liberals and socialists may also be a matter of degree. Liberals would want a college education to be affordable. A socialist would want it to be free.

Moderates (I prefer the term mongrel, if only because it actually feels more accurate, if provocative) have always struck me as people who have trouble making up their minds. They're the soft middle of our political decision-making apparatus and probably most responsible for the lack of true direction or consistency in our policy decisions and thus manage to cripple the effectiveness of government at a number of levels. Conservatives and libertarians don't truly exist in numbers that could dominate without the support of the undecided middle. That may be true of liberals, as well. When we're satisfied with the state of our lives, we can get sucked into the conservative point of view: I'm keeping mine, stay away. When we're dissatisfied, we're ready for the liberal viewpoint: Let's share resources to improve the lot of our whole society (maybe I'll get some).

What does this have to do with the question of whether or not we live in a meritocracy or whether we should or, if we should, what it would look like? Here:

Libertarian: We get what we deserve out of life, period.

Conservative: We get what we deserve out of life, and those of us who succeed do so because we're more worthy.

Mongrel: Yeah, I suppose. What?

Liberal: We live in a meritocracy, which is the basis for a fair-minded model of society. A meritocracy provides us with a framework to avoid moral hazard, but we shouldn't be so hardhearted as to throw the unlucky to the dogs.

Socialist: A meritocracy is fine, as far as it goes. But allowing the "undeserving" to drag us down makes no sense whatsoever. We can devise a system where all realize an advantage from public spending that amounts to a safety net that even the most successful benefit from and that even the most nefarious will have their deleterious effect on society negated. That's why it must be a societal enterprise, and not simply piecemeal.

Anarchist: I prefer chaos, so these questions are meaningless. I'd be a libertarian if I didn't like to blow stuff up.

It may look like I'm having fun with this dissection, but these are, for many, life-and-death matters. Political seasons bring out the best and the worst and everything in between in political rhetoric. You'd only have to watch the Republican debates to see which way madness lies when you embark down the libertarian road (I feel most ideas in the Republican base right now are more libertarian than conservative, except perhaps Mitt Romney's milquetoast pontifications on the beauties of capitalism amid his distortions about almost any essential policy question: what does he believe, huh?). The crowd screams approval at how many executions Rick Perry perpetuated. It roared "Yeah!" when asked if a person who didn't have health insurance should die because of it. It screamed "More guns!" whenever the 2nd Amendment was mentioned. Taxes are anathema. And so forth.

What we never heard were policy prescriptions for improving the lives of ordinary Americans. Conservatives and libertarians alike find their solutions in the absence of policy, not in the implementation of one. More of the same, and more of Ronald Reagan's laissez-faire: Government is the problem, not the solution. So why are they running for office? Anarchists would like to know.

By now, it's obvious that I'm a liberal with socialist leanings, and I prefer public policy that is highly prescriptive. I actually have come to despise laissez-faire economists of the freshwater school who use their reasoning to hamper any progressive policies that foster widespread opportunities. When these mostly academy-based individuals cloak their arguments in nearly opaque "Humean" language, I feel my brain start to explode. But then, that's what they're aiming at to begin with. Keep the proletariat and the hoi polloi on their heals, which is where they belong.

I'm going to start quoting Marx, so I'd better stop. Still, wouldn't society be better off if the leaders we elected actually liked society, even one little bit?

The American Human

Remembering Public Policy in an Election Year

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 28, 2012 · 4:38 PM PST

2012/01/28 · 16:38

Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, and Ron Paul are playing out the Republican primary drama to its logical conclusion, which now appears to be Florida on Tuesday. Conventional wisdom -- thrown on its head almost every other week -- now has it that Gingrich had his final run, and Romney survived it and is poised to win handily in Florida. As Florida goes, so goes the nation, most especially because the Republican Establishment has gotten the long knives out because Gingrich is wicked crazy and will stuff Republican chances in 2012 deep into the dark place. Romney Forever.

But among these dramas, we still see that actual public policy is at the heart of the campaign for the presidency, and in a presidential election year, the Congress, as well. And to get a more focused glimpse of this public-policy debate, let's simplify: Romney will get the nomination because Gingrich is an abomination. I actually believe what I just typed, but that's not important. What's important is that it's what the Republican Establishment believes. Newt Gingrich is still alive and kicking and may well give his fellow Republicans heartburn for a few more weeks. But he himself is toast-in-waiting.

Barack Obama laid down his public-policy markers in his State-of-the-Union address, which has caused palpitations for the usual prognosticators like David Brooks, who yesterday criticized the president for going small ball a la Bill Clinton. Why didn't the president call for BIG IDEAS like reforming the whole tax code or solving, once and for all, the budget deficit, or ending entitlements forever. After all, the Republicans have BIG IDEAS like this. Why doesn't Obama float his BIG IDEAS?

It's simple, David. Obama already has. He got some of them through before the 2010 elections, like his fiscal stimulus and his ACA healthcare laws. For better or worse, he runs on those already. As for big ideas (okay, I'm done with the caps for now), Brooks likes to cite Simpson-Bowles. Hey, guess what? Obama has already said he'd be willing to work on budget deficits and entitlements using the Simpson-Bowles framework. David, you know the answer: the Republicans rejected it. Paul Ryan voted it down. It's the actual story. Obama was willing to go beyond Simpson-Bowles in his budget talks with John Boehner. Rejected! So let's move on.

Where did Obama go when he moved on? Fine, call it small ball if you want. But don't act so surprised. For Republicans to dismiss Obama's "small ball" is more than disingenuous. It's so predictable as to be meaningless. The Republican House wouldn't pass an Obama bill if it offered million-dollar bonuses to Republican grandmothers.

What Barack Obama did in his State of the Union, as I said, was to lay down public-policy markers on which to run this year. Okay, they were somewhat small ball (though not all) and a laundry list and a smorgasbord like most State of the Unions. But they do represent policy choices. What are they?

1. Buffett Rule (in your face, Mitt Romney). This is actually large-ball tax policy. Obama says the tax code shouldn't favor the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. This hurts consumers and in the end drives down demand that sustains the business interests of the nation. In other words, the tax code favoring the rich not only creates economic inequality on a large scale but is actually bad economic policy even for the wealthy it seeks to protect.
2. Rebuild manufacturing. Brooks criticizes Obama for wanting to increase manufacturing in the U.S. by rewarding those who help to do this. Why? Brooks reminds us that 90 percent of Americans work in the service sector, so why would Barack even mention it? Maybe because it's in manufacturing that we've shrunk the most and policies that increase manufacturing at home is a smart place to begin to reclaim jobs lost overseas. What does Brooks want, more Walmarts? What any decent conservative would want is to make the goods on the shelves.
3. Barack Obama doesn't want to overhaul the tax code the way Mitt Romney wants to because Romney wants to give even more tax breaks to the wealthy, but we already knew that. Obama likes the current progressive tax system. He just wants to bring back higher rates on the rich, which is where even rational conservatives should want them. After all, what happened during the Bush years as a result of the tax cuts should be the opposite of what conservative want, which is fiscal responsibility. Sounds to me that's what Obama wants. And that's not small ball.
4. Barack Obama mentioned a number of small ideas that added up to something resembling an actual energy policy. Again, that's not small ball. The Republicans have their energy policy: drill, baby, drill! Obama embraces drilling, too. And he's open to better-regulated fracking. If truth be told, I think he's not adverse to the Keystone XL pipeline; he just wants the environmental studies to actually happen. (I think tar sands oil blows, but that's beside the point in this discussion.) Obama also wants to grow the green economy in order to supplant the need for (foreign) oil over time. Conservatives should want this, too. That they don't is pure hypocrisy, or simple politics.
5. In general terms, Barack Obama launched a populist agenda that seeks to bring the 99 percent into the Democratic fold. This harnesses the energy from the Occupy movement (possibly in advance of a resurgence of the movement in the spring) as well as unleashing the hounds on the hapless capitalist that is Mitt Romney. Romney is so tone-deaf in this regard that Obama should be able to make Romney dance like a trained seal on the issue of fair distribution of wealth. This may be politics, but it's also actually good public policy. When wealth coalesces at the top, crashes happen (see 1929) and depressions result. Here we go, again, right, people? What do we do with the tax receipts from increasing taxes on the wealthy? See 6.
6. Diverting money from the investment accounts of the wealthy to government-driven R&D and to education on all levels, as well as driving innovation in technology, green or otherwise, is a worthy pubic-policy set of goals. (See Noah Smith on this.) Conservatives should want this, unless their agenda is to protect wealth now at the expense of wealth later. Guess what I think? Don't bother.

Why didn't Obama present his plans for entitlements? Mostly because he has already, but I believe he already has an agenda in place, which amounts to, first, preserving the economy through Keynesian-light measures, such as the original stimulus package along with his continuing -- but temporary -- payroll tax cuts; second, growing the economy over time until it better supports social programs; third, waiting for his healthcare plan to help solve the Medicaid/Medicare insolvency difficulties. Will it succeed? Probably not completely, because it's not enough. But it leans in the right direction and if amplified in the future (see Robert Reich on Social Security, and here and here for Medicare), there's some promise of weathering the storm.

This is my take-away from the State of the Union. Is it a plan to stand on? Meh. Is it a plan to run on? Certainly. If it all came to pass, would the U.S. be in a better position moving forward? Yes. Is it enough? Of course not. Nothing is ever enough, unless you're Denmark, with a population that is well-educated and generally agrees that the public good is, well, good for the public. For us, here in the U.S., we've got Rush Limbaugh to explain why anything good for the rich is good for the poor. Note to Rush fans: the rich don't listen to Limbaugh. Limbaugh's job is to convince the poor slobs that letting the rich get richer is exactly how the poor slobs will have more money. That Rush seems to succeed at this is one of the great mysteries of life. In fact, the greatest political mystery of all is that the common man can be made to vote against his own self-interests so often. But there it is.

In 2012, we have real policy choices. You can call Obama's game plan small ball, and you can call the Republicans the party of Bold Ideas ("Entitlements are for wussies!" and "Bomb Iran!" and "Tax increases for the wealthy will hurt the rest of America because, ah...gee, look at that pony!"), but this is what the choice, The Choice, is all about.

Update. This op-ed by James P. Wilson is a classic piece of data-misapplication fiction whose basic premise is, wait for it, that the poor are responsible for their own predicament, and it's up to them to solve their own problems. The op-ed should have been entitled "Angry about inequality? Blame the Negroes." Sheesh. The good news here is that the comments on the article show that the vast majority of the article's readers don't buy the baloney. Good going, Washington Post.

The American Human

Fewer Republican Candidates Narrows the Field but Doesn't Broaden the Appeal

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday January 22, 2012 · 8:47 PM PST

2012/01/22 · 20:47

Here it is out front: I don't like these guys. And for a simple reason: whether they're likable, like Ron Paul, dignified, like Mitt Romney, earnest, like Rick Santorum, or flamboyant, like Newt Gingrich, there's one consistent characteristic they all share. They're duplicitous scoundrels. (See, I can offer a negative characterization of them without calling them assholes. That was easy.)

Mitt Romney lies, probably because the truth doesn't serve him or, worse, he's a truthseeker who keeps trying on different ones to see if any fit (none have so far). He's out of touch with reality, which really flummoxes him because it all seems so real to him. Another bubble boy, fer chrissake.

Ron Paul is charming and off his rocker. He's likable partly because he's sincere. You get the feeling that no matter how crazy his beliefs are they're believable because he's so consistent in their explication. I'm not crazy because my world view is consistent. Oh, and I'm not a racist because I consistently don't say anything racist anymore. I'm not a racist, I'm just a whacky old man! So you can totally vote for me.

Rick Santorum, what a concept. If you've got a preexisting condition, you should pay more because that's the way insurance works! You should die if you shoot yourself in the head because that's the way guns work! Don't use contraception because it's immoral, don't get an abortion if you get preggers, even if you're broke and raped by dad, because that's immoral, and, by the way, that's how sex works! Being a woman is a preexisting condition, so live with it! That's why God invented men, to rule the world while women get preggers.

Newt Gingrich. Jeesh. What can you say about him he hasn't already said himself? He's a bold idea man! He wants to radically, fundamentally, literally change the way we do business in Washington! I'm not a lobbyist, I'm an historian! I'm not a serial philanderer, I'm a romantic -- who's been redeemed by God, just ask Rick Perry! We should destroy Fannie and Freddie because I've already milked them enough. And Calista's going to make me president. Don't try to resist!

There's one fundamental truth about all of these men: they want to become president because THEY WANT POWER. Period.

Are there any implications to that? And what are they?

--They may brag that they want to lower taxes, and they might. But they won't stop spending because that's not how POWER works.

--They may say they can create jobs, but they can't. Why? Because they'll be too busy diverting money to their friends. That's how POWER works.

--They will dismantle the social safety net, but that won't save Americans money because Americans will be spending every penny they have on healthcare until they're broke. Except their rich friends will be okay because they won't run out of money. Nothing fuzzy about that math.

--They will start wars because that's where the glory is. Oh, and also where the money is.

It's the weirdest deal I've ever seen, watching South Carolinians weighing the pros and cons, trying to figure out who to support. Rick's a really moral person, but Newt's a real leader, but Romney's got business experience, but Ron Paul wants to give me more freedom.

Here are the questions they aren't asking themselves:

Santorum's morality will give them what?
Newt's going to lead them where?
Romney's business experience is going to help them how?
Ron Paul's going to give them what freedom they they don't already have?

I didn't listen to every speech by every candidate, but I do know one thing: Newt Gingrich beat Mitt Romney the old-fashioned way, with racist buzz words and violent rhetoric. Mitt Romney beat himself by being an unmitigated weasel, period. Oh, and he didn't use enough racist buzz words.

Am I calling South Carolina a racist state? Uh, yeah. Are they? Maybe. I vacationed there a few years back and found the residents uncommonly hospitable. Then again, I'm white, too, so what does that mean?

The rump Republican Party is itself a white, male-dominated group, currently dedicated to dispatching the Black Man in the White House, and South Carolinian Republicans epitomize the core of the national party. Gingrich won South Carolina because he seemed the most anti-black of them all. Calling Barack Obama the food-stamp president was key. His earlier statements about hiring "poor" kids from "poor" neighborhoods to be the janitors in schools was the setup. "Food-stamp president" was the slam down. If you think this isn't racist talk, you haven't been paying attention.

We may be post-racial as a nation, but not in South Carolina, and Newt just proved it. Yet, what has he proved? Since South Carolina doesn't register voters by party affiliation, data is unclear; I found one set that put Republicans with 44% of the voters in the state. So if Gingrich garnered 40% of Republicans, that means 17.6% of the state's voters endorse his rhetoric.

I may have undermined my own point, but I don't think so. I always keep in mind the sword fight scene in Romeo and Juliet, which began with an almost friendly duel between Romeo's sidekick Mercutio and the doomed Tybalt. Romeo the peacemaker steps in to stop the duel and in doing so causes Tilbolt's blade to strike home.

Benvolio: What, art thou hurt?

Mercutio: Ay, ay, a scratch, a scratch; marry, 'tis enough.

Of course, Mercutio died, and Romeo revenged his death by killing Tybalt, setting the stage for the tragedies to follow. My point is a bullet or a blade is a small thing. But, as Mercutio said, 'tis enough. And so the seeds of racism embraced by a few voters is enough to change the course of history. Every Republican president since Ronald Reagan, who began his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi. George H. W. Bush? Willie Horton. George W. Bush? Speaking at Bob Jones University.

The irony here is that those most opposed to the Gingrich surge are the Republican establishment. They'd make strange bedfellows with the Democratic Party, if it weren't for the fact that the Democrats are praying that Newt remains on top.

I'm left to reflect, as a Democratic partisan, how painful it is to pray that Newt Gingrich's poisonous rhetoric -- that sustains the least palatable beliefs of his party -- might sustain him to the nomination. Instead, we should fight the rot wherever we see it. And, boy, was it visible in South Carolina last week.

The American Human

Stop the Politics, I Wanna Get Off

calross

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 17, 2012 · 1:50 PM PST

2012/01/17 · 13:50

It's hard for a political junkie like myself, with a penchant for economics debate, to admit that, in fact, there may be more to life than expressing outrage at misbegotten policy or countering misinformation so dominant in public life. But there you are. For this moment, I'm done.

My doneness likely will last a day or two. Yet a couple of minutes away from examining countervailing opinions on vital issues that leads to nothing ever happening to make the lives of Americans better can't be a bad thing. It might be healthy.

Instead, let's look for a minute at what makes life worthwhile. I consider myself an optimistic person in spite of how much I enjoy chronicling the ridiculous things politicians do, and I think the reason for that -- being optimistic, I mean -- is that I get a lot of satisfaction out of life.

I'm currently pretty happy. That's because I'm essentially healthy in spite of having too many bad habits over the years, and while I've made mistakes in both my personal and professional life, I've never had to pay the ultimate penalty: lose a job or a mate that was absolutely necessary for my success or well-being. I guess that's probably the definition of being lucky.

Generally speaking, friends and family are the key to happiness. I like who I get to hang with, I like them very much, and I appreciate that they were even there for me to run into. Again, dumb luck. I haven't been as lucky with my own siblings -- neither of my brothers talk to me, for reasons too unfortunate to relate here -- but I have male friends that more than fill the void. I have several, in fact, that are, undeniably, my brothers.

I've generally lived in small towns most of my life, except for two and a half years in Tokyo, which took care of my big-city fix for life. What a place! Now I live in the quaint wine-country town of Sonoma, a town that is small-town America and still whip-smart enough to know that we're just one Walmart away from turning into the Mall of the Americas. Sonoma bans large chain stores or big signs. Instead we have little shops and great restaurants and a nice town square. Okay, we do have a McDonald's, but what's one lousy hamburger among friends?

My days are filled with writing, reading, playing music, walking the town, heading to the gym, shooting a round of golf, spending time with my girlfriend and her family, and taking pleasure in the small things in life, such as walking to the market to buy that tomato I forgot or finally figuring out what's wrong with the dishwasher.

I've got a world-class city, San Francisco, just an hour away and one of the best coasts in the world -- including the headlands of Marin, Sonoma, and Mendocino counties -- close enough for a day trip. Northern California is, by and large, a liberal bastion, so I find like-minded individuals in great supply. Even the conservatives around here make sense, if you can believe that. And what's more, the Giants won the World Series two years back and the Forty-Niners -- I might just call them "my Niners" again -- are a game away from the Super Bowl after so many years in the wilderness.

What may be the most important aspect of my happiness is that, while having lived a modest life with modest goals, I'm filled with memories of some pretty fine adventures, and I'm also skilled in filtering out any of the dumb things I've done. (Let's say I'm blessed with non-total recall.) And though never wildly successful at anything, I lived a frugal life and have a small pension. If my luck continues, I won't run out of money before I die.

Life is good. For me, for now.

In a way, that's the problem. I know what a good life looks like. I know what a decent set of human values feels like. I understand love, loyalty, devotion, generosity, friendship, and civility. When I see the opposite expressed, I'm astonished, angry, and horrified anew. (Full disclosure: I have been caught being petty, venal, pigheaded.)

I believe that we humans understand what value there is in a life well-lived, with or without religion, with or without riches, with or without dumb luck. We can, and many do, live an honest life of which we can be proud.

So recognizing how well one can manage in what is, to a great extent, hostile territory (it is a dangerous world), I'm easily disturbed by the outlandish missteps I witness our leaders taking on our behalf.

If I begin to list the public-policy outrages we witness day in and day out, I'm back to politics, so I'll stop now. Except to remind all of us that we don't need religion for the Golden Rule to come into play: It should be at work, everywhere, everyday. That it isn't is a tragedy, played over and over.

So, my non-political reflection today is that if I feel fortunate -- and I do -- then I must want that for every living soul, as well. And I do.

The American Human

Poll

99 votes Show Results

Are you happy?

99 votes Vote Now!

Are you happy?

Yes!

17 votes

Pretty much.

53 votes

The jury's still out.

11 votes

Define happy.

4 votes

No.

11 votes

None of your damned business.

2 votes

I will be if the -insert team name- wins!

1 vote

Newer
Older

RSS