Category: Politics

I enjoyed E.J. Dionne’s latest column over at the Washington Post. He deals straightforwardly with an incredibly important issue in our current political climate:

One of the troubling aspects of 2004 was the extent to which partisan politics invaded the churches and seemed to enlist them as part of the Republicans’ electoral apparatus. But there is a difference between defending the legitimate right of churches to speak up on public questions and the hyperpoliticization of the church itself.

This is exactly what I kept thinking as various Catholic officials were commanding that John Kerry not be allowed to take communion, and as instances of Republicans using churches as campaign apparati were revealed. I hadn’t been able to encapsulate all the reasons this was so troubling, but in Dionne’s column I found the perfect way of putting it:

For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma. It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question — social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church’s view. “Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues,” DeLauro said. “But we’re rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church.”

The one-issue church is precisely the problem. It is a microcosm of the one-issue electorate, or, to put it more accurately, the wedge-issue electorate. Abortion and homosexuality are the two that leap clearly to mind, but we could probably list more of them, these issues that turn rational people into screaming ideologues. It oversimplifies a complex political debate, impedes good governance, and distracts voters from evidence that relates to their voting choices. As Dionne says,

In other words, Democrats on both sides of the abortion question worry that it is crowding out all other concerns. And in very polite language, the Catholic Democrats suggest that their bishops allow them some room to disagree.

Even anti-choice Democrats get that they were elected to govern a complex nation with many important concerns, only one of which is the abortion question. The only people who benefit from keeping the focus on one issue are the ones whose actual governing skills are not that impressive.

This Sebastian Mallaby column from today’s Washington Post really got me thinking. Mallaby writes in response to what he feels are inaccuracies in the book, Confessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins, whom Mallaby calls “a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense.” Full disclosure: I haven’t read the book. Apparently Perkins portrays corporations as evil, omnipotent entities that use bribery, assassination, and seduction to extort tons of money from poor nations. Putting aside the truth or untruth of such a depiction, though, Mallaby’s defense of the corporations seems a little off:

Perkins likes to say that of the world’s 100 biggest economies, 51 are companies. This old chestnut is based on a fallacious comparison of companies’ sales to countries’ gross domestic product

. . .

According to an apples-to-apples comparison done by the United Nations, just two of the world’s top 50 economies were companies in the year 2000. Of the top 100 economies, 29 were companies.

Oh, well and good, as long as it’s only 29. If Mallaby was trying to reassure us that corporations aren’t so big and powerful, color me uncomforted. He anticipates this natural response:

That may still sound like a lot, but remember that companies compete against each other. In the world as Perkins dreams it, the top 100 or so firms are joined in a shadowy conspiracy. But the reality is that Exxon Mobil schemes to undermine BP and Shell, and General Electric plots against Siemens and Hitachi. Countries don’t face a united corporatocracy. They play firms off against each other.

This is leading us to Mallaby’s main (and erroneous, in my opinion) point, but let’s take a brief moment to study that paragraph. While it is certainly true that these companies compete with each other in some areas, there are a few obvious areas where their interests align quite well. Things like oil industry subsidies, or oil exploration friendly legislation, or not mentioning the idea of conservation in your State of the Union speech. Mallaby’s contention, in other words, is not always true, and it is those times it is false that present the danger that Perkins might be referring to. Here’s that main point I referred to:

Besides, power is not the same as sales figures. Governments force citizens to pay taxes; firms can’t force customers to do anything. Governments put citizens behind bars; citizens can use consumer power to put companies out of business. Governments have a monopoly on the right to impose laws, including laws that constrain corporate behavior; the fact that firms spend vast sums on lobbying is proof not only of their strength but also of their vulnerability. Of course, sometimes the lobbyists succeed. But over the past couple of decades, the scope of environmental, health and safety laws has generally expanded.

There are a lot of problematic claims to unpack here. Corporations can’t force customers to do anything unless they can get the government to do it for them. In that context, the assertion that the scandaliferous lobbying is a sign of weakness seems totally ridiculous. And, of course, to refer to the stronger environmental laws, now continually assaulted and weakened by this President, is laughable.

As I said, color me uncomforted. To follow Mallaby’s contentions to their logical conclusions would imply a world where large, wealthy, and powerful corporations could indeed enact all sorts of mischief to the extent that their interests aligned with each other, and to the extent they could find (or purchase) sympathetic ears in the government. Actually, maybe Mallaby was right after all.

Books mentioned in this post:

A disturbing column in the Washington Post notes that President Bush has used national security as an excuse to change laws that would have declassified his Presidential papers after he had been out of office for 12 years. From the story:

in 2001 President Bush used post-Sept. 11 security measures as a reason to issue an executive order that turns the law on its head. Bush’s decree allows former presidents and their heirs to bar the release of documents for almost any reason. It flies in the face of congressional intent and forces our nation’s leading historians to take legal action if they want to gain access to documents.

What a wonderful way to respond to 9-11, by cloaking the executive in secrecy. While it might be fun to speculate about the things Bush might be trying to hide, I would prefer to know the truth. In our government we have the right to know how the nation is governed, and Bush seems to have decided that he is exempt from telling us.

Now, you might say that surely some leeway must be given. Well, some leeway was built into the existing law:

Congress passed the Presidential Records Act in 1978. The law was intended to ensure that after a period of no more than 12 years, presidential records, other than those dealing with existing national security matters and a few other exempted categories, would be made available to the public forever. Thus the law serves as the final check on indiscretion in office and the final basis for presidential accountability.

So, anything relating to national security could remain classified, and everything else could remain classified for 12 years. In Bush’s case, that’s the year 2020. What in heaven’s name could be so awful or amazing that the world would not be ready in 2020? If things keep on like this, we’ll never know. These documents allow everyone to learn from the successes and the failures of Presidents. But don’t take my word for it:

I was lucky enough to have had a chance a few years ago to ask former president Gerald Ford about the Presidential Records Act and was struck by his answer. “I firmly believe that after X period of time, presidential papers, except for the most highly sensitive documents involving our national security, should be made available to the public,” he said, “and the sooner the better.”

In short, Bush is trying to hide everything from everyone, like always, and in the end the people will lose. The faith-based President cannot get away with this. Let’s keep the pressure on Congress to rectify this silliness. Contact your representative, or your senator, or both.

A Washington Post story reveals some enlightening information about bankruptcy in this country. You all may remember the Bankruptcy Act of 2005, which the Washington Post reports:

requires people to get credit counseling before they can file for bankruptcy protection. The premise behind this provision is that by forcing people to get counseling, it will show that many bankruptcy filers in fact have enough money left over after taking care of their essential expenses to repay creditors.

I always viewed this premise with skepticism. Filing for bankruptcy is unpleasant and trying, and I don’t think anyone would just do it because they wanted an easy way to avoid paying bills. Dennis Hastert had a different opinion:

“We must stop abuse. Those who abuse the system make getting credit more expensive for everyone. Bankruptcy is for those who need help, not those who want to shift costs to other hard-working Americans,”

So there you have it. Two different opinions. Only now, because of the new law, which requires mandatory counseling as part of filing for bankruptcy, we can examine some actual evidence and see who was correct. Here we go:

Now, in the first analysis of the tens of thousands of people who have undergone credit counseling since the law passed, the bankruptcy attorneys association found that nearly all (97 percent) of the debtors truly couldn’t pay their debts.

. . .

Four out of five filers felt forced to seek bankruptcy protection because of a job loss, catastrophic medical expenses or the death of a spouse, according to the report, “Bankruptcy Reform’s Impact: Where Are All the Deadbeats?”

Those lazy widows! This news story reveals that the Republican talking points on this matter were total, total bulls–t. The report reveals that Americans seeking bankruptcy protection were, well, bankrupt. That was the whole point of bankruptcy law in the first place, so here the Republicans have introduced a pointless, unnecessary law that benefits the credit card companies and the credit counseling services at the expense of widows, people suffering medical problems, and people who have lost their jobs. Way to go, jerks!

Apparently a fool by the name of Thomas Suozzi has decided to run against Spitzer in the Democratic Primary for New York Governor. From the February 26th New York Times:

Thomas R. Suozzi, the Nassau County Executive and a self-styled renegade Democrat, announced Saturday that he was challenging Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for his party’s nomination for governor, running as an underdog who will rely to an unusual degree on New Yorkers who have been sued by Mr. Spitzer or who dislike his tactics.

Suozzi, I guess, thinks that it’s a good thing for a Democrat to do, to take money from possible criminals who are under investigation, pissed off at Spitzer for catching them scamming the populace for money! Some strong language occurs to me. Suozzi’s campaign is stupid too:

Mr. Suozzi pledged to “fix the culture of Albany” by working to reduce property taxes, overhauling Medicaid to save billions, settling a state education funding lawsuit, and giving more money to schools in New York City and districts statewide.

Let’s examine those pledges briefly:

• Reduce property taxes? What the hell? How’s that going to fix anything, unless trying to balance the budget is a problem.
• “Overhaul” Medicare? WTF? Democrats believe that the state has a responsibility to care for its citizens, idiot.
• Settling a lawsuit is neutral, so I can’t criticize it.
• I am all for more money to schools

By my count that guy’s not a Democrat. Of course, he lists his party affiliation proudly on his website. Oh wait. No he doesn’t. He’s ashamed of his party, and I am ashamed of him. Surely he has some good positions though, right? Wrong.

Democratic allies of Mr. Spitzer also say that Mr. Suozzi is a political unknown statewide whose chances are being intensified by news media eager for a political battle. They also question his opposition to gay marriage and his attacks on what opponents call partial-birth abortion, saying he is acting like a Republican.

I’d say those Democratic allies are correct. If you’re going to be a Democrat, you should believe that all people deserve fair and equal treatment under the law, even if they are-gasp!-women or gay people. Idiot.

The New York Times story does make some irritating equivocations, seemingly for the sake of balance, like this stuff:

When pressed, though, most of them acknowledge that Mr. Suozzi is the kind of politician who many voters statewide have historically related to: A handsome Italian-American Catholic from the suburbs whose grandparents were poor immigrants and who has proved appealing to some Nassau Republicans.

. . .

“The likability factor is a very important piece of this,” Mr. Jacobs said. “Tom is very good at walking into a room and connecting with people. He likes people. Think of Kennedy vs. Nixon. Think of Clinton vs. Bush or Bush vs. Kerry.”

Wow, I guess this guy must be pretty good looking and likable, huh? What about his ability to, you know, do a good job? Oh, and note to Mr. Jacobs: don’t compare your Democratic candidate to George W. Bush if you can avoid it. Idiot.

Kate Steadman over at Healthy Policy has a great post about what Wal-Mart’s approach to health care should be teaching Liberals. She begins by quoting Ezra Klein:

What taxpayers should be outraged by is that Wal-Mart isn’t following their ethos to its logical conclusion and loudly advocating for a universal health care system. They should be angry at the hypocrisy, not the usage of federal/state health programs.

Bingo. What’s bad here is that people can work full time and still be unable to afford health insurance. It’s not that Wal-Mart isn’t spending enough on health insurance; they don’t spend enough on wages. Higher wages, more than anything, would make a huge difference.

These points are right on. The problem with Wal-Mart’s approach to health care is not that it takes advantage of government programs–we like that–but that it is hypocritical in the way Ezra describes above. And as Kate rightly describes following Ezra, the matter here is not the health care they don’t provide, it’s the wages. It is unconscionable that someone could work full time and not make a living wage.

Barbara Ehrenreich deals with precisely these issues in her book Nickel and Dimed, which I highly recommend. This is an issue Democrats could win big on if they found a way to coherently state their position. The two key elements are that the state can and should provide health care for all citizens, and that employers should pay a living wage to all employees.

This doesn’t quite seem right:

No one, though, should fall for phony enforcement of the sort peddled by Senate Democrats in their lobbying reform bill.

That’s a snippet from the end of a Washington Post Editorial, and if it seems unusually strong, I thought so too.

Apparently, the Washington Post believes that

The existing rules are too permissive and don’t require enough disclosure; more is needed. But such changes need to be coupled with a better system to police compliance.

Right there with you. So far so good. Apparently, the best idea is to

create an Office of Public Integrity. This office would serve not simply as a passive repository of filings, as the current system does. Instead, it would be an independent, nonpartisan entity, on the model of the Congressional Budget Office.

Fair enough. That sounds all right to me.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has proposed creating an Congressional Ethics Enforcement Commission, composed of former judges and former members of Congress, to investigate complaints and determine whether a violation has occurred; the ethics committee would determine what punishment was proper. That’s a bit too much outsourcing for our taste.

Umm, what? Outsourcing? They are calling former judges and congressional representatives “outsourcing?” I don’t see why it is automatically a bad idea for the people with oversight of congressional ethics to not be, in addition, congressional representatives. Maybe this is a bad idea, but I’m not sure why it deserves such scorn. Oh, and speaking of scorn:

No one, though, should fall for phony enforcement of the sort peddled by Senate Democrats in their lobbying reform bill. Their measure would establish a Senate Office of Public Integrity — but it would have authority over lobbyists’ compliance with the rules, not senators’. They’d be left to the ethics committee. Public integrity, it seems, only goes so far.

This is ridiculous! To recap, Republicans flout all the rules, sell influence and accept bribes, engage in all sorts of shady dealings, and now Democrats are accused of only pursuing “public integrity . . . so far?” Completely incomprehensible. The first time I read it I thought it was a misprint. This sort of irresponsible and misleading editorial makes one want to write a letter to the editor.

For a much more thoughtful and incisive look at reform Molly Ivins is, as usual, right on:

Forget the people talking about “lobby reform.” The lobby does not need to be reformed, the Congress needs to be reformed. This is about congressional corruption, and it is not limited to the surface stuff like taking free meals, hotels and trips. This is about corruption that bites deep into the process of making laws in the public interest. The root of the rot is money (surprise!), and the only way to get control of the money is through public campaign financing.

I’ve mentioned before the idea that, as long as dollars can buy votes, we won’t really have a clean government. Ivins rightly keeps the focus on the larger situation, which is that the GOP led congress is rotting with corruption. Meanwhile, the Washington Post chooses to whine that the Democrats’ bill isn’t exactly what they’d like. Stupid.

Clearly, people assume that Hillary Clinton will run for President in 2008. I’m a big fan of Hillary, and I think she’d be a fine President, and if she ends up being nominated I’ll vote for her as hard as I can, but right now it’s hard not to notice that statements like this:

Six years after battling her way to a Senate seat from her newly adopted state by campaigning night and day, Hillary Rodham Clinton is coasting toward re-election _ and piling up money that could go toward a run for the White House in 2008.

Do a lot to stoke the fires of movements like this:

“New York is not on our radar screen,” said William Black, an operative with the anti-Clinton “Stop Her Now” effort, which was launched a year ago and had raised less than $25,000 as of the end of 2005. “It’s really not much of a race.”

There are two things going on here. First, there is the Rove-style strategy on the part of the Republicans to establish Hillary’s character in the mind of the electorate, in the same way they did to John Kerry (flip flop!) or Al Gore (invented the internet!). Second, there is the press’ willingness to go along with it. After all, it is a good story, Hillary is a widely recognized figure who engenders strong responses. She has not, however, stated any intention to run in 2008, so conjecture like this:

Leftover money could be used for a presidential campaign in 2008 if she runs.

The difference between Clinton’s 2000 campaign and her re-election bid is striking.

seems ill-founded, present more to excite and intrigue readers than to inform them. After all, what about this:

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson would not discuss 2006 campaign strategy, the possible benefits from not having a tough Senate race or the potential effect on 2008.

“We’re not taking anything for granted,” he said. “Senator Clinton is going to continue to focus on being the best senator that she can and making a strong case for her re-election.”

Seems pretty clear to me. It hurts liberals when the focus is taken off of the 2006 elections, which are lining up to be disastrous for the GOP, and put on the 2008 prospects of Hillary who, because of who she is, also allows the Republicans to keep pumping the old Bill Clinton outrage well they love so much. Hillary probably does want to run, and who can blame her? She’s made impressive inroads with Republican-heavy Upstate New York.

For now, though, I think the focus, from a news perspective, should be on the information relevant to a few months from now, as opposed to a few years.