PoliticsMajor.com header image 1

Pet the Grizzly

February 5th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

photocredit: mybulldog

There was a giddy frenzy going around Democratic circles last week. “Did you see Obama in that Q&A with the Republicans? He tore them apart!” A reason to cheer: the president had finally rid himself of the uber-nice bipartisan guise and put on that of a stern teacher tired of telling the class their paper is due tomorrow. That role probably came very naturally to him; the law professor really never left the building.

Cynicism could easily have set in after Obama’s breakthrough performance. Obama has dazzled his peers before. He has often also rolled up his sleeves and gotten back to the grind soon after the razzle dazzle. The latter is slightly less scintillating than the former. But this time, his administration has a new strategy: pet the grizzly.

Calling the Republicans in Congress a “Minority” is a disservice. Not necessarily to the party, but to the power of their obstruction. By being cantankerous and instinctively cranky (McCain, I am looking at you), the GOP has managed to have power when they have none; they have set the pace and outline of the agenda by just standing there, unwilling to budge. They are the grizzly, albeit a slightly lazy one with short, but potent bursts of rage.

Last week’s Q&A, the American version of the British Question Time, shook the grizzly awake.

After reminding the grizzly that it, too, has a role in government, Obama wants to show voters how willing he is to cooperate by being nice to this burdensome beast. He is, in a way, forcing them to make a move that doesn’t involve sitting back down. He invited Republican leadership to his Super Bowl party; he is seriously considering implementing some central GOP proposals into his healthcare reform package; he invited Republicans to a brainstorming meeting next week, as well as some trips to Camp David. Obama is being nice to the grizzly. So nice that any attack or disgruntlement on behalf of the GOP will make it the party to blame.

Whether this strategy will work or not is unknown. Republicans could easily brush this off as “faux bipartisanship,” as they have in the past; Obama could also throw his hands up in the air and go into street fighter mode (Chicago politics were his training ground). But this time, the president is going for a lasting effect. Even if the Republicans don’t play ball, he has already sowed the seed of mutual-responsibility in the mind of voters. Republicans, even in their minority status, are also in charge of governing. If Obama can make the argument that a minority is only as strong as it lets itself be, voters will start to share the blame, as they should. Republicans have coasted for too long on just saying “no.” Now they must at least say, “no, but…” Quite a stretch, even for the largest of mammals.

Tags:   No Comments.

Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?

February 4th, 2010 by Ashley
Respond

Obama was voted into office because he was different than the average candidate. He had the ability to enthuse the American people with his charming rhetoric and inspirational message of change.  In a time when the economy was sinking, job loss was skyrocketing and the country was at war Obama was able to offer hope for the future.  Voters ate it up, they believed in him. Here was a younger, fresher politician. A Washington outsider who would change the way the presidency was run.  A messiah, if you will, that would solve all of the country’s problems and make big changes.

In his State of the Union speech, Obama tried to recapture the mood of his campaign.  He reminded voters that he is on their side, not Washington’s side, and that he sympathizes with their concerns.  Only this time around, it was a hard sell.  A year of slow-moving decisions and failed health care reform has turned supporters into skeptics.  People just aren’t seeing the change that was the focus of his campaign.  The euphoria that the Democrats experienced after a successful, driven campaign has faded.

That being said, Obama is in danger of losing the support of a key demographic that could make or break an election: young voters.  Voters ages 18-29 turned out in record numbers for the 2008 election.  If the Democrats fail to come up with and pass a solid health care reform bill that people can actually support, these voters (who are the most likely to be affected by the bill) may pass on 2012 elections.

The state of the economy will without a doubt still be a major factor in the 2012. Even if the job market is improved, the country will still be far from recovered.  People lack patience; they want the economy fixed now.  If they don’t feel that there has been enough “change” they may wish to hedge their bets with the next Republican candidate that comes around (providing that it’s not someone with the name Palin.)  America is a nation that likes to place blame. Fingers were pointed at the Bush Administration and in 2012 they could very well be pointed at Obama.

Obama’s major downfall is his unwillingness to veer away from his extreme statist policies, even when they clearly aren’t working.   He’s attempting to push through a healthcare reform bill that just isn’t popular.  In 1996, Clinton stopped pushing HillaryCare and focused on bipartisan solutions.  Clinton realized that in order to accomplish anything, he needed to lean more towards the center and away from big government.

Scott Brown’s election win in Massachusetts is a prime example of America’s centrists view. Republicans have acknowledged that Brown appeals to independents and moderate democrats because he does not represent traditional republicanism.  Brown’s victory should be a wakeup call to Obama that at this point, the country is more moderate than left-leaning.

According to Polifact.com, Obama has broken 15 promises so far.  For a president who is dealing with a “deficit of trust” these broken promises are significant.  His new budget projection shows an increase from last year, a contradiction to his many statements that he would reduce spending.  Domestic discretionary spending was increased by 84 percent, a fact that Republicans are making noise about.  They are calling out his credibility and ability to lead, serious allegations when he’s already on a slippery slope.

If Obama doesn’t quickly re-evaluate his strategy and accept blame for failed policies, he could be opening the door for a Republican in 2012.  Because voters so passionately believed in him, they will easily be disappointed if he doesn’t do what is expected of him.  His campaign of change won’t be enough to carry him to another term if he can’t produce results.

Tags:   · · · 1 Comment

Question Time Comes to America

January 30th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

If you have, oh, 60 or so minutes to spare, I give you one of the most engrossing, and compelling piece of political theater I have seen in quite some time.

After delivering his State of the Union Address on Wednesday, President Obama visited GOP leaders to talk about the issues on Friday. What was meant to be an untelevised discussion ended up being Question Time, a traditional event in the United Kingdom,but completely unheard of in the US, where the Prime Minister is grilled by members of Parliament, broadcasted live. The end result was President Obama taking each point raised against his budget, healthcare reform, his stimulus, and his efforts at bipartisanship, by Republican party members and tearing it apart, piece by piece. He managed to extemporaneously defend his policies and approaches, all while being civil and cool-headed.

As one Republican official said after the first Q&A ever of this type, bringing the cameras in was a “mistake.”

It sure was. For the Republicans, however, it wasn’t all bad. Many party leaders afterwards were very enthusiastic about this back-and-forth, saying it showed the American people they indeed have ideas to solve our country’s problems. They might’ve just been trying to hide the tears, but they’re right about the benefits of this type of discussion.

This might be the beginning of a new tradition: Question Time might finally come to America. And with it, trusting Washington might begin an upswing.

Enjoy:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Tags:   · · 1 Comment

Old Posts, Renewed

January 29th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

Here are some most posts, taken from the Archives, that are worth reading for the first time or revisiting for all the good times you had the first time. Enjoy.

Obama kills at White House Correspondents’ Dinner

LGBT group call out Obama on Defense of Marriage Act brief

Vanity Fair’s Palin profile

500 words on: Caring about Michael Jackson’s death

Tags:   · · · · No Comments.

The Blame Game

January 28th, 2010 by Ashley
Respond

President Obama ‘s first State of the Union was a mixture of contradictions, exaggerations and pointed fingers.  His attempt to bring revive the spirit he generated during his campaign fell flat and at times his speech seemed contrived, lacking the usual intellectual rhetoric that we’ve become so used to.

It was obvious that the goal of this State of the Union was to reassure cynical voters and independents that Obama can do his job, that is, if the Republicans would stop being so obstructive.   While he often spoke of bipartisanship, ironically Obama did not hold back his attacks on the Republicans.  This speech was possibly the boldest we have seen the President, as he challenged the Republicans when he said, “just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership.”

Blaming the Republicans for lack of success during the past year seems like a cop-out.  If Obama fails, it will be his fault, not the fault of the GOP.  The Democrats have the majority in the House and the Senate.  Lack of support from his own party to pass the healthcare reform bill is what is holding it back.  Perhaps instead of blaming Republicans for being obstructionists he should revisit why members of his own party refuse to support the bill.  Or why the majority of constituents are fervently against it.

There were many points that Obama made throughout the speech that were overstated and inaccurate.  He claimed that the stimulus plan saved 2 million jobs, failing to note that this is just a projected number pulled from reports put together by his own advisors.  In addition to the exaggerated numbers, the jobs he mentioned were mostly government jobs, (cops, firefighters, clean energy) a contradiction of his earlier statement that “the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America’s businesses.”

During one surprising moment, Obama criticized the Supreme Court ruling on campaign advertising, causing Alito to shake his head and mouth, “That is not true.”  Obama claimed the Supreme Court ruling would allow foreign corporations to spend without limit in elections. While this could be a possibility in the future, it is dependent on future rulings, not the one which the Supreme Court just passed.   The calling out of the Supreme Court was desperate and inappropriate. Given that the justices are to remain impartial, Obama essentially taunted them.

He spoke briefly of healthcare reform, encouraged Congress to push forward but failed to communicate a plan for doing so, placing the blame on the Senate for falling to push it through.  This statement incited criticism, even from Democrats.  Sen. Landrieu said, “Moderate Senate Democrats, who give the Senate the 60 votes, come from states that have to appreciate a broad range of ideas and since the president ran on a bipartisan, change, working with Republicans, [he] doesn’t do a great service to then say everything the House passes without any Republican votes is something the Senate should just take.”

Obama did finally call to end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” but didn’t say much beyond what he had previously promised in his campaign.  At best, gay rights activists can put the pressure on and hope that Obama gets around to dealing with the issue this year.

Overall, a major problem with the speech was Obama’s failure to take responsibility.  Yes, he apologized for the lack of trust constituents have in the government, but quickly turned it around to blame lobbyists and Republicans. He attempted to separate himself from Washington by aligning himself with the American people, using words like, “we” and “them” and called out politicians for being in permanent campaign” mode.  A laughable statement, considering this week he brought his own campaign manager to the White House.

It is doubtful that the American people will feel satisfied with Obama’s half truths and poor follow-throughs.  He was voted into office based on his promise of change, and while he was right when he said “I never suggested change would be easy,” he has to accept that until he starts showing real leadership, he will face harsh criticisms from disappointed voters.

Tags:   · · 1 Comment

Can America be Progressive At All?

January 28th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

photocredit: twoblueday

As a veteran of the Great Progressive Disappointment of 2000 and 2004, I know what is bouncing around in most left-leaning minds. Compromises. Botched opportunities. Defeats. Disarray. Cynicism.

Despite what many people in the center or right may believe, this is a very tough time to be a liberal. I’m far from a traditional liberal myself, but I know what is expected of President Obama and the Democrats in Congress by the lefty crowd–and the despair setting in after a few years of apparent political gains. Without going too deep into what specifically is being sacrificed or sidelined in the progressive agenda, there needs to be a discussion about whether America is a country that is receptive to this sort of agenda at all. Can America find room in its political landscape for an honest progressive initiative? Can things like gay marriage, health care reform, and government spending ever be seen in a positive light, without having to coat them with “moderate” or “conservative” overtures? Is, and will America always be a center-right nation?

Last night, at his first formal State of The Union Address, President Obama presented a few shrewd political ploys. He proposed an across-the-board spending freeze ( not include entitlement programs, such as Medicare and Social Security, or security funding), and an elimination of the capitals gains tax. He’s already been getting flak for the freeze(as he should, having previously campaigned against such an ineffective gesture). The larger point here, however, is his reason for adopting such traditionally conservative proposals. The message is clear: inroads into conservative ground.

Bill Clinton, as president, made a similarly perplexing move. He labeled himself the “balanced budget” president. He loudly opposed big government, saying in 1996 that its “era is over.” Clinton and Obama, two left-of-center presidents,  adopted ideologically puzzling initiatives. Why?

They might have been facing the cold, compromising reality. [Read more →]

Tags:   · · · No Comments.

Immigration Reform: Battle Royale 2010

January 27th, 2010 by Ashley
Respond

Immigration plays a key role in making the United States a vibrant, prosperous nation.  The blending of different cultures and ethnicities creates a unique dynamic in many areas of the country.  Despite the current state of the economy, the U.S. is a bright light in the eyes of many immigrants.  They come here hopeful, looking for jobs that pay more than the ones offered in their home countries so that they can build a better future.  

While open borders would be an ideal situation, resources and materials have their limits. Overpopulating any country comes with extreme consequences and measures must be taken to prevent the United States from becoming overburdened.  The catch-22 is that in order to keep our country from becoming poverty-stricken (in a third world sense) limits must be placed on the number of people allowed to flee the same situation our country fears.   

Restriction of legal immigration leads to the inevitable issue that the United States has been struggling with for years: illegal immigration.  With over 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S., there are many legitimate concerns that must be dealt with, including its effect on crime rates and the economy. The Center for Immigration Studies states on its website:

“Even though illegal aliens make little use of welfare, from which they are generally barred, the costs of illegal immigration in terms of government expenditures for education, criminal justice, and emergency medical care are significant. California has estimated that the net cost to the state of providing government services to illegal immigrants approached $3 billion during a single fiscal year. The fact that states must bear the cost of federal failure turns illegal immigration, in effect, into one of the largest unfunded federal mandates.”

While many statistics can be skewed in favor or against immigration, allowing people to illegally enter the country puts us at an enormous security risk. The government has been attempting to fix immigration policies for many years, the last being the failed attempt by George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy in 2007. 

Recent events have brought to light the urgency in which immigration reform must be dealt with.  Not only is a comprehensive plan that protects our borders and determines the fate of 12 million or so illegal immigrants essential, but the law must also protect the rights of those immigrants.  The New York Times recently obtained documents that exposed the cover up of abuse that led to the deaths of 107 immigrant detainees in government custody since 2003.  

The Obama Administration has pledged to address immigration reform in 2010 after it spent the past year on the back-burner because of a little issue called health care reform.  But alas, a new year brings room for a new hot topic and immigration policy is moving up in the ranks.  

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano recently discussed a strategy that would focus on improved border security with stronger fences, motion detectors and “real ID’s” being implemented.  Speaking to the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee she said, “You have [to] deal with what is drawing people across the border, and that is a job.”

As the former governor of Arizona, Napolitano certainly has the experience and knowledge to tackle immigration policy.  The trick will be to implement new ideas instead of trying to beef up the same tired ideas that have been tried in the past, while offering both parties something they can chew on.  While Republicans and Democrats can both agree on enhancing border security (thought maybe not agree on how) Napolitano’s proposed strategy of offering a path to citizenship for current illegal immigrants will be a tough sell to Republicans.  

The most action immigration reform has seen since Obama took office is when Rep. Luis Gutierrez briefly introduced the Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 (CIRASAP) in December.  Gutierrez’s bill appears to be a slightly longer version of the failed Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007, which both Democrats and Republicans vehemently rejected. 

The CIRASAP would allow illegal immigrants to become legal citizens after satisfying certain requirements (learning English, background check, etc) as well as increased border security and efforts to crack down on drug smuggling and other crimes.  Nothing new there.

Where the CIRASAP differs from the 2007 attempt is the plan that allows immigrant workers into the United States in the future based on the recommendations of a federal agency.  This agency would use research to determine the need of U.S. employment and place workers where they are needed.  A modern day bracero program, if you will. 

While Gutierrez’s bill proposes some new strategies, it will hardly be the end all to the immigration reform debate. If this last year is any indicator, the Republicans and Democrats will once again be at each other’s throats, echoing the current health care reform debacle.  With the Democrats wanting a free for all with a slap on the wrist and many Republicans willing to send illegal immigrants back to their country to wait in line for a visa, a compromise at this point seems far-fetched.   

It is important for both parties to remember that just like health care; there will never be perfect groundwork for a successful immigration system.  Immigration is not clear cut; it is a complicated, emotional issue that affects people’s lives. Exploring options and bringing new ideas to the table while leaving xenophobic nonsense behind will bring our country much closer to finding an adequate solution than tossing insults back and forth.  

Tags:   1 Comment

Old Posts, Renewed

January 21st, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

Here are some most posts, taken from the Archives, that are worth reading for the first time or revisiting for all the good times you had the first time. Enjoy.

SCOTUS pick reflects Obama’s politics

Afghanistan’s no. 1 domestic enemy

500 words on: Iran and Mexico, and Democracy’s growing pains

Has gay marriage hit a tipping point?

Tags:   · · · · · No Comments.

The Enduring Cost of Poverty

January 20th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

photocredit: United Nations Development Programme

Hurricane Katrina jolted us as Americans. “How could something like that happen here?” “Why so much destruction? Why so little help? Why so late?” It brought back issues of inequality, race, poverty, and what a cad once called the “Two Americas.”

After a few days of eerily similar footage coming from Haiti, after a 7.0 earthquake rocked the entire country, many more questions are raised. People will ask a lot of why’s–Why do poor countries always get struck with the most devastating disasters?–but they will also raise a lot how’s. How can we prevent this from happening again? How influential was poverty in making an earthquake that would have killed dozens in an American city, into a disaster that will leave nearly 200,000 people dead and over one and a half million homeless?

The devastation in Haiti could have happened in countless other countries. According to Dr. Jeffrey Sachs’ research, one of the leading academic voices in the field of development economics, nearly one billion people around the world, one sixth of humanity, are in extreme poverty; 1.5 billion are poor and barely live above mere subsistence. The poor and the extreme poor make up 40% of humanity. 40%. The direct effects of poverty are clear: hunger, malnutrition, disease, and lack of water and electricity. But poverty has what is called a “multiplier effect.” It turns on a chain reaction that can easily gain speed with the right push.

Haiti’s infrastructure was weak, now it’s crumbling. Haiti’s economy was teetering, barely gaining some modest momentum, now it’s completely halted. Haiti’s health and law enforcement services were spotty, now the island is best described as on the verge of “anarchy.” It seemed as if Haiti was rocking on the verge of a precipice…and this earthquake rattled it into the abyss.

The underlining poverty in that country exists despite decades of foreign aid from industrialized countries. One discussion that has left development economists with more questions than answers is how can an influx of foreign aid be effective. Some believe the focus should be the amount, making each grant small and focused, i.e. $1m for mosquito nets rather than a $10m blank check. Others think there should never be strings attached, and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) on the ground should manage the use of that money. Almost everyone agrees that foreign aid, as it is used now, is a hit or miss venture. It hardly guarantees a country will be better off tomorrow than today, no matter how much money they are given.

What is a guarantee is that the pervasive poverty seen in countries like Haiti are like a puddle of gasoline, waiting for a match to fall on it. The effects of poverty are not only limited to emergency aid, but extend to people’s reactions. Frustration leads to anger, struggle leads to rebellion: the poor reach an “enough is enough” point. In a country where 80% of the population is poor, and the richest 1% own nearly 50% of the wealth, one earth-rumbling shake is enough.

Katrina reminded us that the poor are often overlooked, until we have no other option than to acknowledge their plight. Our attention hones in on them for a mere moment, compared to the years they’ve spent as a side-note in our collective conscious and politicians’ rhetoric. Katrina came and swept a city; years later, the city has been nearly forgotten. New Orleans is nowhere near done being reconstructed, but we hardly hear any stories about how much it still needs us. The city, like its underlining troubles, are once again dismissed.

In Haiti, there is an opportunity for renewal like never before. Goodwill and resources are pouring in, instilling some optimism amidst the wreckage. It may take years to regain some of the momentum this little island had before the quake, and decades more to truly be on the path to better living standards. The only way it will reach such a path is if the deeper issues are dealt with, long after we seal the dam with a  finger. Along with foreign aid, in whatever type or form,  Haiti needs ambitious and dedicated people and nations to help her stand up, for good this time, empowered and ready.

Tags:   · · No Comments.

Old Posts, Renewed

January 6th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

Here are some most posts, taken from the Archives, that are worth reading for the first time or revisiting for all the good times you had the first time. Enjoy.

The military’s abandon of the suicidal soldier

1984: The book that killed George Orwell

500 words on: The fall of (opposite) marriage

Lincoln’s great depression

Tags:   · · · · · · No Comments.

Rethinking Illegal Immigration

January 5th, 2010 by Jaime
Respond

photocredit: Victor Sira-Uprooted

In the first half of the 19th century, Horace Mann dedicated himself to the Common School movement. Providing free, open, and accessible schools across the country was the great equalizer, the “the balance wheel of the social machinery.” Thomas Jefferson was an early, but unsuccessful (twice in his home state of Virginia), advocate of what is now free public education. Mann made it a reality nearly five decades later.

Nearly a century later, President Roosevelt signed into law the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, better known as the GI Bill. Thanks to the GI Bill, millions of Americans and their families from every generation thereafter benefited from a legion of college-educated servicemen. College was now affordable and accessible, new opportunities were within reach for people returning from military service.

These two initiatives transformed the employment landscape forever. As anyone in the education field will tell you, it is not about what students learn now, but how they use it once out of school. Free public schools and free college for servicemen and women opened doors for them. But the largest ripple effect was felt outside its core: everyone else had to keep up.

President Obama said he will focus on immigration reform in 2010. The issue comes back to the fore at a time when people who can work here legally can hardly find work at all. He is faced with polar extremes calling for a swift and indiscriminate deportation of all 11 million or so illegal immigrants on one end, and an amnesty granting all of them legal resident status on the other.

It’s highly unlikely that Obama will pick either option. He will probably pick a mix, a trademark Obama solution. But he must understand the often overlooked implications of taking any approach. Just as free public education and subsidized college education transformed not only those enjoying the program but also those outside of it, immigration reform will transform America’s vitality for generations to come.

Free public education and the GI Bill both changed the game by changing the rules. They both, in economic terminology, incentivized people to get educated. They made it easier to obtain, and more “expensive” to pass up. There is now an opportunity cost for those choosing to forgo public school. If you do, you will be competing against people who did take advantage of it, and are more prepared, and therefore more appealing to employers, than you. You will find it harder to get a job, and if you do find one, you will almost certainly be paid less than your more educated counterpart. In either case, you will lose money because you are unemployed, or just paid less than the rest, by not getting educated. Same goes for the GI Bill: military personnel opting to skip this benefit will compete with college-educated candidates, and feel the same pain in finding a good paying job. Money is lost in lost wages, skipping these programs becomes expensive.

When policy is being thought out, these implications are sometimes never considered. The benefits are later noticed once the ripple effect is more visible and pervasive. Unfortunately for Obama, he cannot skip thinking of the “then what?” when reforming our immigration system. With 11 million illegal immigrants (a guesstimate at best) in the United States, any change will surely be noticed.

Illegal immigrants are typically filling unskilled positions such as field worker, janitor, busser, line cook, or any other job that can easily be paid under the table. One of the most popular arguments from those hoping to deport every single one of them is that they are taking valuable, sought-after jobs. They claim these jobs, if undocumented workers were not doing them, would be filled by American citizens, therefore alleviating some of the unemployment woes our country consistently faces. This is absolutely true. If these jobs were vacant, millions of Americans would rush to fill them, especially when so few jobs are being created. But the big question here is whether that is actually a good thing.

Keeping illegal immigrants here does what public schools and the GI Bill do: it makes education more appealing. Allowing people from other countries to work here without papers is making our country more educated. Let me explain:

Think of our job market as a giant ladder. The unskilled jobs occupy the lower rungs; the skilled jobs are up top. The more education you need for a job, the higher up the ladder it is. As previously mentioned, illegal immigrants tend to occupy the bottom rungs, not because they are necessarily poorly educated (some have advanced degrees in their home country, but end up an assistant janitor here in the US), but because they do not have the papers needed to fill a more closely monitored and visible job. Those jobs they are doing are obviously filled and cannot be taken up by anyone else; those unskilled jobs are off-limits to legal American workers. In other words, anyone looking to find a job as a field worker will find it nearly impossible to do so, and will have to keep looking further up. To find something above those bottom rungs, however, means they will need more preparation, i.e. more education and experience. It’s either that or be unemployed for an indefinite amount of time. For someone who has no skill set (which is likely the case for someone looking for a job as field worker/busser/etc.), the easiest way to get minimal education, a requirement to being competitive in jobs higher up the ladder, is a public school.

What if they were not here? What if, for whatever reason, all undocumented workers were no longer working those jobs? Then the previously off-limits rungs at the bottom of the ladder would be accessible to all. Anyone looking to find a job, any job, would not need any amount of education. The pay would be dismal, of course, but it would still be better than earning nothing or minimal unemployment benefits. The key consequence of making these unskilled jobs available is that it would, in effect, make education LESS appealing. There would be a fight at the bottom between unskilled, uneducated candidates to fill these positions, since there is no point in obtaining any amount of education for the sole purpose of getting a job. Money could be earned, legally, with absolutely no education. The opportunity cost that was previously there has been taken out.

There are changes beyond the job market, beyond making basic education less sexy and no longer a necessity, which hit everyone. Once legal American workers fill these jobs, the old rules must change. There can no longer be under-the-table arrangements–the federally mandated minimum wage actually has to be obeyed. This will raise wages across the board, which will increase inflation, since more dollars will be flowing around the country, making each dollar worth less/every product worth more. In product industries, like produce, this will be felt even more. Since legal workers will demand at least minimum wage, and that wage will most definitely be higher than what undocumented workers were previously paid, the cost to harvest lettuce and strawberries will rise, and that cost will passed on to consumers in price increases. Inflation will hit everyone, even those who never picked a strawberry in their lifetime.

Inflation eats into the pockets of working Americans, but loss of taxes and social security deposits eats into the pockets of the federal government. Contrary to the myths circulating in anti-immigrant circles, more than two thirds of illegal immigrants DO pay income taxes and have to pay into the social security fund. From 1996-2003, payments coming from people using Individual Taxpayer Identification, a number issued by the IRS to people ineligible to collect Social Security (i.e. illegal immigrants) totaled $50 billion. As just mentioned, they CANNOT collect Social Security. They are, in essence, giving money away to our legal senior citizens. This thankless contribution would cease to exist, not to mention the taxes paid, if and once they were deported.

The other side of the immigration debate wants legal status for all. What if they were given amnesty? Then something similar to the education depreciation/inflation dynamic would occur, but with less of the costs. Wages would rise, since these workers would become legal and demand a minimum wage, starting the same snowballing effect that would lead to inflation. But the money the government received from them through income taxes and SS deposits would not be taken away. They would pay into the piggy like everyone else. They would also keep the bottom rungs off-limits, making basic education a necessity in the workforce. Some would even take advantage of their newfound legal status and strive to get more education, since many states prohibit awarding financial aid for college to illegal immigrants.

The issue does not have a silver bullet. Any proposed solution will have unpreventable consequences. Wherever Obama goes with his immigration reform in 2010, he cannot overlook the indirect effects it will have for the current and following generations. Horace Mann called education the “balance wheel” of society. Now, Obama needs to picture a ladder, and what rungs he wants American workers to strive for.

Tags:   · · · · 1 Comment

Old Posts, Renewed

December 18th, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

Here are some most posts, taken from the Archives, that are worth reading for the first time or revisiting for all the good times you had the first time. Enjoy.

Deconstructing Obama’s Speechwriting

Do we need another Ferdinand Pecora to put the rich on trial?

Bittman on our diets, our world, and out future

Dating during a recession

Tags:   · · · · · · · No Comments.

Healthcare Tumbles, Democrats Fumble

December 16th, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

“This is essentially the collapse of health care reform in the United States Senate. Honestly the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill.”

Howard Dean is not happy. The healthcare reform bill that has bounced up and down the walls of Congress is nothing more than a vestige of its peak form. There is immense frustration within the liberal ranks due to the back-breaking compromises made by Democrats and the President to appease a few, or sometimes just one (Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-CT), to get the bill signed by the holiday break. The public option was the first to be offed, then the Medicare buy-in, and now the option to purchase more affordable medicine abroad was deemed too much to support.

Within the ranks of the Democratic party there is a sense of brewing mutiny. Dean is not the only Democrat suggesting a scratch and re-do. Sen. Roland Burris (D-IL) says he cannot vote for the bill as is. Too much has been compromised, he says, for him to feel this will enact true reform:

“I am committed to voting for a bill that achieves the goals of a public option: competition, cost savings and accountability. I will not be able to vote for lesser legislation that ignores those fundamentals [...] My colleagues may have forged a compromise bill that can achieve the 60 votes that will be needed for it to pass. But until this bill addresses cost, competition and accountability in a meaningful way, it will not win mine.”

On the other side of the same aisle, moderate and conservative Democrats are still not swayed and unwilling to back this bill, even after it has been watered down so much. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) cannot vote for a bill that includes any provisions that fund abortions. Period.

“I’m not on the bill. I have spoken with the president and he knows they are not wrapped up today. I think everybody understands they are not wrapped up today and that impression will not be given.”

Friendlies within the other party, like Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), are still hesitant about the bill but involved in the process. In all, the support Harry Reid took months to solidify, and the outreach the Democratic caucuses and President Obama have made to other parties has resulted in an impasse that is quickly deteriorating the strength of the reform.

What Howard Dean is suggesting, redoing the bill through the reconciliation process, is immensely risky. Essentially, passing a bill through the reconciliation process can be done with only 51 votes, a simple majority. It gives the image that it was stuffed down the throat of the minority. In order for the bill to qualify for reconciliation, it would need to go through major changes, as the legislative maneuver is only used for budget measures. This is what Dean meant by a simpler bill.

This is gaining some steam in both houses, but Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) says it simply cannot work due to the complexity of the bill:

“Reconciliation is a very spare and thin process with limited opportunities. For example, no insurance reform if we do reconciliation. We won’t give American consumers the tools that they need to fight back against the health insurance companies.

And I think they understand, as we do, that’s a very, very important element in this package.”

This does not mean it will not be used. It may just mean that the bill will become a budgetary reform of healthcare, focused on the numbers, not so much the provisions.

At this point, the Democrats feel the breath of an electoral defeat in 2010. The bill is almost alien to those who initially supported it, and those who do not are waiting for all the spinning plates to come crashing down. President Obama and the Democrats are fumbling their political strength after 2010. Maybe a rematch is not such a bad idea.

Tags:   · · · · · 1 Comment

Lieberman’s Medicare Tantrum a Flip-Flop

December 15th, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

Sen. Joe Lieberman loves the spotlight. He relished running with Gore in 2000  as his VP; he was giddy when all eyes jumped on him for breaking ranks with the Democratic Party and becoming and Independent; and he savored the months when he was considered the frontrunner to be McCain’s VP choice (which he was, if it weren’t for outside forces that bent the Maverick’s hand).

Now, the spotlight is shining on him once more. This time as the Gang of 1 against healthcare reform.

His latest objection is over the expansion of Medicare to those below the current qualifying age of 65. Proponents of the current healthcare bill want the qualifying age to be lowered to 55, as a way of helping people who don’t have coverage and cannot afford it due to the high premiums their age would trigger. Lieberman was clear this past weekend on his refusal to accept such a preposterous measure.

Too bad he was for it a few months ago. The video below surfaced yesterday and is set to deflate the hot air balloon Lieberman has been riding for years. Is he for-gainst it, or just against whatever everyone is for?

Tags:   · · · No Comments.

Obama’s Nobel Prize speech and the necessity of Just War

December 14th, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

photocredit: White House Blog

photocredit: White House Blog

There was hardly any single way President Obama could accept the Nobel Peace prize successfully. His harshest critics are his compatriots, people who should be proud that their president is being honored on the world stage, but instead are ridiculing the prize and process. So when Obama accepted his prize on Wednesday in Oslo there was little he could say to convince the bitter many. His speech spent few words on explaining why he deserved it. In fact, he downplayed it enough to potentially insult the Norwegian Nobel Committee.

What he did do was explain his intentions as president, in particular why he believes fighting in Afghanistan is justified and necessary. He went on to give a speech about the principles of ‘just war’ theory, America’s role in global affairs, and his pragmatic optimism of the future.

Just war theory has developed over many centuries by various philosophers, many attributing St. Thomas Aquinas, in the 13th century, as the father of the belief system. It regained prominence in American political discussions during the Vietnam war, arguing what is the just way to fight and end a war. One of the main proponents of including just war theory into the Vietnam debate was Michael Walzer, with his comprehensive and compelling book on morality and war, Just and Unjust Wars. Ever since the 70’s concepts like jus ad bellum (just reason to start a war), jus in bello (just way of fighting a war), and jus post bellum (ending a war justly), have been a staple of all discussions about America’s wars.

On Wednesday, President Obama gave what has to be one of his most revealing speeches on foreign affairs thus far.

Obama laid out, in what at times seemed like a professor’s lecture, the argument that the war in Afghanistan fit the just war model and was a sort of necessary evil.

The president is on record for naming Reinhold Niebuhr as one of the most influential political philosophers in his life. Niebuhr was a towering intellectual figure in the first half of the 20th century that was known for his insights into the complex relationship between morality and politics. Niebuhr was a pragmatic optimist, calling America’s pride a double-edged sword, and a man confident humanity could make progress, but in small, measured steps.

On Wednesday Obama made statements that are fairly common sense, but are hardly ever uttered by a politician, much less a president. After offering a fair share of humility, claiming his accomplishments compared to past prize-winners are “slight,” he went on to explain his war strategy. His decision to expand America’s presence in Afghanistan came after many hoped he would adopt a much more pacifist strategy, one past Nobel Prize winners, like MLK Jr., would have probably preferred.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their [Mandela, MLK, Gandhi] examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

This reinforces the so-called Obama ideology: sober, carefully optimistic realpolitik. “Evil does exist in the world,” could never be said by a doe-eyed idealist; it is a true, but loaded statement only said by someone preparing to tackle that ‘evil.’

He went on to make a very Neihburian statement about human progress:

So part of our challenge is reconciling these two seemingly inreconcilable truths — that war is sometimes necessary, and war at some level is an expression of human folly. Concretely, we must direct our effort to the task that President Kennedy called for long ago. “Let us focus,” he said, “on a more practical, more attainable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution in human institutions.”

Gradual evolution in human institutions implies both pragmatism and optimism: pragmatic hopes for human progress, and optimistic that human institutions (government, alliances, grassroots organizations) will lead that effort.

Niebuhr and Walzer believed that war can not only be justifiable, but at times the best (and last) of options. Niebuhr said it was our “self-interest” to accept our responsibilities as world leader. Walzer saw virtue in military interventions during ethnic and regional conflicts, such as genocide and unjust invasions. Obama made subtle mentions of this responsibility and its benefit:

Whatever mistakes we have made, the plain fact is this: The United States of America has helped underwrite global security for more than six decades with the blood of our citizens and the strength of our arms. The service and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform has promoted peace and prosperity from Germany to Korea, and enabled democracy to take hold in places like the Balkans. We have borne this burden not because we seek to impose our will. We have done so out of enlightened self-interest — because we seek a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if others’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.

Obama furthered the point that America is, as Madame Secretary Albright used to call her, the “indispensable nation.” Global stability is at risk in Afghanistan, Obama said. A loss there is a loss felt in every other country.

[...] In many countries, there is a disconnect between the efforts of those who serve and the ambivalence of the broader public. I understand why war is not popular, but I also know this: The belief that peace is desirable is rarely enough to achieve it. Peace requires responsibility. Peace entails sacrifice.

Niebuhr thought that politics could indeed be an agent of change, but it was still politics, full of compromise and tit-for-tat. He was a firm believer that a saint could remain saintly even in hell, but very few people could pull off that feat. Anyone hoping to change the world could do so in politics, but they often fall victim to its corrupting vices. An advocate of change needs both vision and a strong stomach. Obama echoed that belief when he explained his diplomatic outreach efforts:

Let me also say this: The promotion of human rights cannot be about exhortation alone. At times, it must be coupled with painstaking diplomacy. I know that engagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation. But I also know that sanctions without outreach — condemnation without discussion — can carry forward only a crippling status quo. No repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.

The speech overall was very well-written, at times lofty and at times unfiltered and realistic. Obama was able to communicate what many felt he needed to, which was painstaking humility and an explanation of the Committee’s decision. But it also went far beyond that. It let anyone willing to listen to it in its entirety know what is fueling Obama’s foreign policy.

After the speech, I am sure the Committee was slightly disappointed, hoping he would have accepted the prize with much more panache. I am also sure, however, that many liberals and conservatives were scratching their head by the end of it: why is it so hard to pigeonhole this president into an ideology?

It’s because he doesn’t have just one, and it’s a fluid process.

Tags:   · · · · · No Comments.

Old Posts, Renewed

December 5th, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

Here are some most posts, taken from the Archives, that are worth reading for the first time or revisiting for all the good times you had the first time. Enjoy.

The Paradox of Pride: Pride Makes, And Breaks, The Politician

Rosarito and the Drug War

Mexican Television for Dummies

Tags:   · No Comments.

It’s All Political: Obama’s Afghanistan Plan

December 4th, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

It’s All Political is a conversation between the main author of this blog, Jaime, and a frequent contributor, Ashley. It is a commentary on the most important news, events, and ideas of the moment. Ashley’s blog can be found at Coffee Late at Night.

Jaime: Hi, Ashley. I think the important news this week needs to be addressed. It’s on everyone’s mind, and, I believe, it has brought Americans to a standstill: What was Tiger Woods’ pre-nup?

Ashley: Well at this point it seems like the pre-nup is changing based on the number of women he’s slept with outside his marriage.

Jaime: I see. So by Saturday it might be his wife who has the Nike endorsement. Well, in all seriousness, there couldn’t be a better time for President Obama to reveal–if you can even call it that by now–his plan for Afghanistan. Not only is the number one athlete in the world taking most of the headlines and water-cooler chatter, but his plan is hardly a surprise by now.

Ashley: Turns out the leaks were not quite as accurate as predicted, I thought for sure he would focus on a counterinsurgency strategy like McChrystal outlined in his August memo. But first, what did you think of the tone of his speech in general?

Jaime: I have mixed feelings about it. I like it because it set realistic, narrower goals for Afghanistan, and a strategy that I was silently rooting for. It focuses on districts, tribes, and brings interaction with Afghanistan down to the micro-level. In a way, it makes a solid Karzai government a bonus–the tribal leaders will have a stronger relationship with the US than ever before.

I thought it came short when it addressed Americans. To this day, there is no call for sacrifice by any of our elected official, in particular the president, for these two wars. I think people need to know and feel what war really costs. I am not advocating he tell people that if they don’t carpool they ride with Hitler, like during WWII, but there needs to be something he asks from us to support the burden placed on our troops, their families, and innocent civilians abroad. I know you have qualms with the process that brought him to the speech, but what did you think?

Ashley: I think we are looking at it in a similar way. I thought the speech was unsatisfying. He was giving a speech trying to justify at least another 18 months at war and he didn’t incite much passion. I was looking for him to convince doubters, give them a reason to be outraged or upset. But instead he seemed to say, “well, we’ve got to do this even though we really don’t want to.” We should want to. These terrorists came over on our turf and took the lives of our people. Have we forgotten that? I know he mentioned 9/11 but it lacked the personal touch that, say, Reagan would have had.

Jaime: It was definitely a reserved speech. Some people even called it cold and calculated. I woudn’t go that far. I think Obama was not trying to rile up the troops or stir up patriotic fervor, but calm nerves. I think he did that with a fairly comprehensive and pragmatic plan.

As for the terrorists, this new plan addresses that. There are many reasons why I am thankful Bush is no longer in office, but one is that his foreign policy was so manipulated by the neo-conservative agenda of nation-building. This is what has led to one empire after another to fall. This new plan tells people, “Yeah, that whole nation-building bit? Not so hot right now.” It is much more modest: destabilize al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, avoid a Taliban takeover of the country, and prepare the Afghan forces to keep themselves afloat. That is very different to the Bush model: build a free and democratic Muslim nation.

Ashley: I support his plan. I think he set things on the right track so that we can hopefully make progress. I’m also pleased with his decision to focus on Taliban forces. While the number of troops is important, it’s what we do with those troops that will make the difference. So, I can support the strategy, but can you guess what I don’t support?

Jaime: Does it rhyme with limeline?

Ashley: You’re good. Why on earth would he announce a timeline for the war? How can you convince people that this is a war we should be fighting when you give them an 18 month deadline?

First off, we don’t have enough troops over there even with the surge to get this done in 18 months. Second, is there any reason why he couldn’t have waited out the withdrawal announcement? I feel like Obama is trying to please both sides..”yes we’ll give you more troops but we’re also getting the troops out of there.” It doesn’t make sense to me. He should have let the troop surge sink in before sharing the “possible” withdrawal date with everyone, including al Qaeda and the Taliban, who he pretty much invited to just wait out the war. I have a feeling this will come back to bite him in his re-election campaign.

Jaime: It sounds like you are looking out for him. I didn’t know you had a hidden Obamamaniac in you, Ashley. I think the deadline makes sense in any war where there is an occupying force that does not intend to colonize the land but is waiting to hand it over to the local government. Americans are barely getting over their Iraq war fatigue. An open-ended war would not only be a drain on the American spirit, but on any politician looking to make progress on other issues in spite of it.

It also makes sense geopolitically: the US needs the Afghan government to understand we will leave them once the burden is too much. If the plan focused more on the macro-level, and relied on Karzai becoming the Superman he is incapable of being–being a fraud does not help–I’d think a deadline would be a dangerous thing. But this plan relies on cooperation from districts, provinces, and tribes. The Karzai government is almost an afterthought. There is greater power in Afghanistan at the local level than at the federal level.

As for al-Qaeda and the Taliban, if there seems to be insufficient progress in closing off their access to power in Afghanistan, Secretary Gates and Clinton, along with the Joints Chief of Staff, have testified that the deadline is “flexible” and based on “a review of the conditions” in late 2010. Even if it weren’t, Obama would not want to be the president that left Afghanistan an anarchic power vacuum.

Ashley: Don’t get too excited! I was merely stating that I’ll be the first to point this out come re-election. Sure, we’re tired from Iraq, but do the American people really want another war that turns out to be a failure? I think saying that we will be there until the job is done would be more uplifting than plotting an escape route.

We need to acknowledge that annoucing a withdrawal date is going to encourage members of the Pakistan Army to hedge their bets with the Taliban to protect themselves after we pull out. I think Rep Mike Pence said it best when he said,”It never makes sense to tell the enemy when you’re going to quit fighting in a war.” I understand that the President was trying to convey to the people of Afghanistan that we will allow them to build up their nation and stand on their own two feet, but in this case I believe that the President made the wrong decision. He is putting the security of Afghanistan at risk, especially for an arbitrary cut off date.

Jaime: 2010 is shaping up to be a very interesting year. Not only are there very important, and potentially crippling elections for both parties, but Obama will have essentially owned the economy, the war, healthcare, and global warming. It will be interesting to see what Democrats and Republicans use as turning points in the war, and how they will use them against each other. I think the first thing to look out is how many base-level members of the Taliban turn in their allegiance and become a part of the counter-insurgency. On top of the secretaries and the Joints Chief of Staff, Former Centcom commander Anthony Zinni has been a strong advocate of this strategy. Back in October, 2009, he said the US should “absolutely” be “negotiating with Taliban elements.” Do you think this may the first sign of success or failure for this plan?

Ashley:  I place a lot of value on what Zinni says, considering he foresaw problems arising from Afghanistan before 9/11 happened. I think that the strategy will be effective as long as we keep our focus on the Taliban as well as al Qaeda, who while smaller in numbers, pose a huge threat on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. We also need to continue to build up Karzai’s regime,as difficult as that may be, with Clinton leading the way. I’m just relieved that Obama finally made a decision. I’m interested in seeing how things pan out in the next few months, with the President being heavily critized from both parties. I think that a successful end to the war in Afghanistan could single-handedly get him re-elected, but I don’t see that happening in 18 months.

Jaime: If we don’t see a resolution to the Afghanistan war within 18 months I guess we can just keep tallying the mistresses that played “18 holes” with Mr. Woods. What is your count so far?

Ashley: I believe we are up to three at this moment, but tomorrow is another day.

Tags:   · · No Comments.

Huckabee Shouldn’t Have Apologized

December 2nd, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

It’s not even 2010, and already two of the supposed GOP front-runners for the 2012 presidential election have taken themselves out of the race. Sarah Palin has quit her job as a politician, both consciously and not, and is now just another pretty talking head. Her memoir was just one more thing to add to her already impressive litany of failures and shots in the foot. At least she has her “gotcha” money.

And now Mike Huckabee. The former governor of Arkansas and presidential hopeful is under fire for granting clemency to a convicted burglar back in 2000 who shot and killed four sheriff deputies in Seattle, WA, last week. The killer, Maurice Clemmons, was shot and killed earlier this week. Both events are immeasurably tragic and complex, but what is most puzzling is the uproar this unleashed against Huckabee.

Earlier this week Mike Huckabee apologized for his decision 9 years ago. He shouldn’t have. His decision in 2000 was reasoned and well-supported by the trial judge. The parole board decided to parole Clemmons, not him.

As Huckabee explained in a piece he wrote yesterday:

The case before me was of a 16 year old who received a disproportionate sentence of 108 years for burglary and robbery charges[...] The reasons were straightforward — a unanimous recommendation from the board, support from a trial judge and no objections from officials in a case that involved a 16 year old sentenced to a term that was exponentially longer than similar cases and certainly longer than had he been white, upper middle class, and represented by effective counsel who would have clearly objected to the sentencing.  (His race, economic status, or education level are not excuses for his behavior because many people of color who are uneducated and living in abject poverty are civil, trustworthy, and honest to a fault and many well-educated, wealthy, white people are dirtbags — think Bernie Madoff).

So why the rage?

It seems to be coming from both sides, which is even more puzzling. The right claims he should have been stern with Clemmons and denied any sort of early release–shame on him. The left does not go that far, but claims he should be partly to blame for the death of four innocent members of the police force.

But what Huckabee really did was act rationally and with compassion. He took into consideration the race, economic status, and the background of the convict, and saw the glaring unfairness in the sentencing. He made a reasonable decision, considering the convict’s age and crime. He decided he deserved a “second chance.” There was no apparent signs of psychosis or psychological imbalance . He made the right decision and had no way of knowing this tragic week would have taken place.

Somehow that is being missed amongst talk of “political implications in 2012″ and the “savage acts in Tacoma.” Nuance is being sacrificed.

Tags:   · · No Comments.

Obama in 2008 Op-Ed: “More” In Afghanistan

December 1st, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

He’s never painted himself as a pacifist. You’d know that if you read your print media.

From a NYTimes Op-Ed from July 14th, 2008:

As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

Tip o’ the hat to SelectiveEcho.

Tags:   · · No Comments.

The liberal agenda needs unity

December 1st, 2009 by Jaime
Respond

photocredit: Kevin Krejci (flickr)

photocredit: Kevin Krejci (flickr)

Back in 2003, on the eve of the Iraq War, protests blanketed the world. San Francisco, DC, Paris, London, Sydney, Berlin. On that particular day, anti-war protesters united to send a clear message to George W. Bush: No Iraq War!

Actually, it was hardly clear or united. Interspersed amongst the Iraq war protesters were those chanting for Palestinian independence, vegetarianism, the end of sweat shops, more education funding, universal healthcare, the end of military spending, and more gun control. It was hardly a chant, but more of a cacophony of interests, each trying to reach a higher decibel than the rest.

This is a pervading flaw in the liberal movement. Instead of focusing on one overarching issue at a time, or even just a handful at once, liberals (or progressives as some are now calling themselves in the hopes of giving the brand a new beginning) take on more than they can chew. Just look at the aforementioned list of complaints and see how many have actually been addressed 6 years later.

photocredit: D.C. Atty (flickr)

photocredit: D.C. Atty (flickr)

This splintering effect does not only hurt the coherence of the movement, but the credence. It may be why so many people make the “liberal” interchangeable with “flip-flopper,” “wimpy,” or someone who lacks fundamental principles. Each new sub-topic siphons powers away from the most pressing causes of the day.

Conservatives are masters at keeping the pack intact. Even if they are falling off a cliff, they will do so together. There is tremendous power in that. The Republican party currently has little to no political capital, outnumbered in both chambers, a dismal approval rating, and the Bush stain that is hard to rub off. Yet, they are heard and command respect. They still have power while being powerless. Overtures and concessions to the GOP have been made by Democrats, infuriating the liberals that back the latter. By staying united, an unmovable, impermeable blob, they force others to change course or make deals that benefit the conservative cause.

The current political landscape would make anyone think the liberal agenda is steamrolling through Congress and sweeping the nation. But it isn’t. It’s crawling forward, in need of many jump starts, and reaching the finish line a mutated thing alien to many liberals. Compare that to almost any year in the Bush administration with a Republican Congress (2000-2006). Nearly every initiative he proposed was passed, or at least seriously considered. The Democrats were pushed aside, and rarely pushed back. Even policies Bush proposed that jarred with traditional conservatism were approved by GOPers that were still fond of Reagan. Conservative principles were abandoned time and time again by Republicans, but they were so in unison.

Liberals needs to understand this basic fact of political pressure: one firm blow is more effective than dozens of little pricks. If they want Obama to listen to their cause, they need to apply firm pressure, all at once. This has clearly not been the case thus far. Things like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, which could be axed out by Obama in one firm blow, are hardly a sure thing. He doesn’t see the urgency in dealing with it. That is where activists come in.

They need to pressure Congress and the President to act and now. But they need to find unity first.

Tags:   · · · · 3 Comments