June 15, 2015: The Beagle in the Room, Of No Account, Reach for the Biscuits

 

In my post of May 22, I published a response from the White House to my concerns about the upcoming agreements of and the processes relating to the ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and similar agreements with our European trading partners.  In a lengthy response the White House made the following assurances relating to the ratification of the agreements. 

  “The new Trade Promotion Authority mandates unprecedented transparency by requiring that any trade agreement be published online for 60 days before I sign it, and Congress will then have months to review, debate, and hold hearings on the details of the agreement before they vote on it. “ (1)

 Imagine my surprise to find that last Thursday the Senate moved to vote without hearings and truncated debate to authorize not only so-called ‘fast-track’ authority but the trade bill as well, all grouped together in a single vote.  No hearings, no national debate.  At the end of the week the House moved in similar fashion to pass the measure but was unsuccessful as a majority in the President’s own party balked at passage.  A major sticking point was the provision that funds providing for re-education and training of those workers displaced by the new trade agreements were to come from cuts in Medicaid. 

 I find it interesting that the “new Trade promotion Authority” mandating “unprecedented transparency” should at this juncture be sequestered behind closed doors and yet unavailable to the public.  And what matters if the documents are published online 60 days before the president signs it if the congress has already voted to approve it; for the horse will have long since left the barn. 

 The White House response, like so many responses from the governing elites, was, of course, a general response duly ‘personalized’.  A ‘canned’ response to an expression of specific concerns; a form of ‘non-communication communication’.   For those in government, the media advisors, the political ‘handlers’ this is seen as a way to placate the great ‘unwashed’—those not in the ‘know’.  The constituent, however, is left feeling like one is on the telephone line navigating a corporate ‘menu’ and speaking with a digitalized ‘voice’.  Communicating with one’s elected representatives is a bit like the citizens of Galveston and Houston fleeing from an impending hurricane calling emergency numbers for instruction on how to evacuate the city only to find that their frantic calls have been routed to New Delhi or Bangladesh from which instruction is given.  It is bad enough that my Congressman is brain dead, but the ‘non-response response’ only serves to further illustrate that the rot runs deep.  One is left to ponder whether the original communication though clearly received was ever read at all. 

I have a beagle named “Belle”.  She is a splendid companion but she will bark and bay at whatever passes, especially the postman, for she is a ‘southren’ dog and she doesn’t much cotton to anything associated with the ‘feds.’  I daily admonish her but she does not hear.  I bark out her name, but she ignores me.  It’s a funny thing, this beagle, for Belle can be upstairs well out of sight and mind, but if I rattle the biscuit jar she will bound down the steps to be the first in line.  So, it seems, it is with our political leaders.  “We the People” are of no account, unless and until we reach for the biscuits.  

 Ask Charlie Gladden.

__________________

(1). See the following post: “May 22, 2015: Response from the White House, Shroud of Secrecy, Deep Suspicions”

 

May 22, 2015: Response from the White House, Shroud of Secrecy, Deep Suspicions

On April 19^th I sent an email to the White House registering my displeasure with both the ‘leaked’ content of pending multilateral trade agreements and the processes by which the products of these negotiations are being presented to the Congress and the American people.  This afternoon I received a reply in which the administration is, predictably, defending its position.

Dear Joseph: Thank you for writing.  My Administration is pursuing a trade agenda that will place our workers, farmers, manufacturers, and businesses at the center of the 21st-century global economy—one that promotes both our interests and our values.  Trade done right is a critical part of my strategy to create jobs, spur growth, and strengthen the middle class. With 95 percent of the world’s customers living outside our borders, our ability to access new markets is vital to our economic well-being.  The export of American-made products supports millions of jobs here at home that pay up to 18 percent more than non-export-related jobs.  And, 98 percent of the more than 300,000 companies that export are small businesses.  However, even though more American businesses are exporting than ever before, most businesses still don’t export anything—leaving an incredible amount of opportunity that can be unlocked for our middle class.  To take advantage of that opportunity and level the playing field for our workers and businesses, we’re moving forward with the most ambitious trade agenda in American history, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In the Asia-Pacific region, the Trans-Pacific Partnership will knock down barriers that block American made goods and services while promoting high standards in the fastest-growing region in the world, including the strongest enforceable labor and environmental provisions of any trade agreement. To protect our workers, the trade agreement will require countries to set a minimum wage, protect the freedom to form unions and collectively bargain, and work to end child and forced labor.  To preserve the environment, it will require countries to take tangible steps to curb wildlife trafficking, crack down on illegal logging, and prevent overfishing.  That’s why conservation organizations like the World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy agree that the enforceable provisions in the Trans-Pacific Partnership are a critical step forward for environmental protection. Some prior trade agreements, like the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, have not lived up to their promise.  The Trans-Pacific Partnership addresses these problems through strong enforcement mechanisms, including for the labor and environmental standards.  This means that if our trading partners, including Canada and Mexico, aren’t playing by the rules, we can hold them accountable.  The agreement also includes new rules that make sure our businesses and property owners are protected from having property taken by foreign countries, while making sure that foreign corporations can’t undermine or get around our own laws and regulations.  Because we know that unfair currency practices by some governments hurt our workers, businesses, and farmers, we are working with Congress on new tools and standards that will make it easier for us to protect American workers and firms from unfair competition. The Trans-Pacific Partnership is also America’s opportunity to lead in the Asia-Pacific.  The alternative to this agreement is to let other powers, like China, carve up the region and drive down standards through bad trade agreements.  We cannot stay on the sidelines while China and other countries write the rules of the road.  We have to seize this opportunity to help American workers and businesses compete on a level playing field in the world’s largest markets in the decades to come. To help us secure the benefits of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, we are working with Congress to enact Trade Promotion Authority, which allows Congress to put forward its priorities for negotiating trade agreements.  The new version of Trade Promotion Authority Congress is considering guarantees that future trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership, will have progressive, pro-worker, and pro-environment standards.  This gives us the leverage to bring home the best possible agreements for the American people. The new Trade Promotion Authority mandates unprecedented transparency by requiring that any trade agreement be published online for 60 days before I sign it, and Congress will then have months to review, debate, and hold hearings on the details of the agreement before they vote on it.  And while we have not yet finalized the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the current agreement is available for all members of Congress to read and review, and we have conducted over 1700 regular briefings with members of Congress on the status of the negotiations and have provided full similar briefings for labor groups, environmental groups, and other interested parties. With a highly educated workforce, an entrepreneurial culture, strong rule of law, and abundant sources of affordable, clean energy, the United States has what’s required to be the world’s manufacturing hub.  My Administration is working every day to help businesses locate, grow, and hire here so that our businesses ship goods all over the world stamped with "Made in the U.S.A." The good news is that this is already beginning to happen—over the last few years, our manufacturers have been steadily creating jobs in the U.S. for the first time since the 1990s.  Good trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership will continue that trend and ensure that jobs are not outsourced, but rather are created here at home.  We will continue to push forward on these efforts because we know that when the playing field is level, American workers and businesses don’t just compete, they win. Again, I appreciate your message.  I am confident we can support job growth at home and boost exports while promoting our values and raising standards around the globe. Sincerely, Barack Obama

While the prospects of trade agreements that benefit all parties are indeed a noble goal worthy of the support of all, such outcomes are difficult to achieve.  In principle there is nothing wrong with the goals or efforts to achieve these goals.  But the president, I fear, is being a bit disingenuous when he maintains that ‘fast track’ authority mandates ‘unprecedented transparency’, for the process has been anything but transparent.  Additionally citing the ‘1700 briefings’ of members of congress does not include the fact that members are brought into a room, alone, and given not only time limits on when they can read, but are presented with only select documentations.  For instance, documents concerning the shifting positions of other parties to the agreements are not part of the portfolio.  Additionally, they are not allowed to bring staff, take notes, nor speak with the press concerning the content of the agreements.  Several Senators, including Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts have loudly complained about the process, the secrecy and the difficulty in getting timely information that envelope this process.  The shroud of secrecy that has descended upon these proceedings only raises the suspicion that something untoward is in the works. 

What we have ‘learned’ about the content of these agreements have come through ‘leaks’ to select spokesman and from what critics have been able to glean from the proceedings.  It still begs the question: if these agreements are such a boon to America, and such a good deal for the manufacturing sector and the middle class, why then have the details not been forthcoming?  Why has such a shroud of secrecy been cast over the proceedings?  Lastly, why is it necessary to ‘fast-track’ these agreements?  The history, of which this administration is most assuredly aware, is that these kinds of agreements have proven bitter pills for Americans to swallow.  If the current agreements under discussion do in fact address the lingering rancor that previous trade agreements have engendered why then isn’t this administration releasing the draft agreements and speaking openly and honestly with the American people about the benefits contained therein?  Instead the Administration maintains a studied silence.

Perhaps this explains why it has taken nearly six weeks to send a pro forma response to a concerned citizen who harbors deep suspicions that no good will come of this.   I hope I am wrong; but I fear I am not.

January 21, 2009: Tale of Two Cities, Legacy Of The South-Side Hit Men, Full-Throated Anthem.

Chicago has been for decades and remains the most segregated city in the United States. It has been made so not only because of decades of racial discrimination but also by the division of the city along class lines. In fact after the Haymarket Riots of the late nineteenth century the city's upper classes, fearing a future Jacobin uprising, arranged for the United States military to position the Great Lakes Naval Base between the affluent north side and the teeming masses of Lithuanians, Croats, Serbians, black, Latino's and others who labored in the stockyards and the meat-packing houses. It is a classic Dickensian “Tale of Two Cities”, the affluent north and the working class south.

Chicago, as baseball historians will tell you, was early the national capitol of our national passtime. Early in the last decade not only did the league offices of the newly formed American League headquarter itself in Chicago, but the two major league teams briefly dominated each of their leagues. The “hitless wonders” on the South side famously defeated the north-side Cubs on the 1906 World Series. But sport and industry was the only thing the north side had in common with the much despised “south-siders”. That they had these things in common does not mean that they shared the same experience. North siders ran the industries and the accounting houses, South siders manned the machinery and became, famously, the “hog butchers of the world”. The same was true of the beloved national passtime as it related to each community. On the north side, where until recently baseball was famously played only during daylight, the Cubs draw from an upper middle class, professional business clientel. One can, even today, watch a Cubs game on WGN on any given summer afternoon and find very few blacks, latinos or other minorities in what is a surprisingly homogenous white uppper-middle class crowd. Through thick and thin, for over a century now, these loyal suburbanites have, as the nation is currently with the Wall Street bailout, been rewarding incompetence and mediocrity as the Cubs now enter their second century of futility.

It has been otherwise on the South Side. There the Chicago White Sox, rocked to the bone by the “Black Sox Scandal” of 1919, and by drawing from a much poorer part of Chicago has been the home of not only weekly fireworks displays, alien space landings, a “disco demolition” and other promotional “gimmics” to fill the parks Comiskey, but old Comiskey Park also hosted the old Negro League All-Star Games, prize fights and, famously, the Beatles. It is a bit ironic, and offends the sensibilities that even during those years where the White Sox win League and World Championships the yearly attendance regularly falls short of the Cubs, regardless of what the Cubs put on the field.

This dynamic has produced some interesting results. Fireworks and concerts come to mind, but also mid-game promotions are used to draw crowds. Sportscaster Harry Carray, when broadcasting for the White Sox introduced his famous “Take Me out To the Ball Game” saranade during the seventh-inning stretch. Likewise organist Nancy Faust introduced in the late 1970's a staple of her own.

It might have been during the hey-day of the “South-Side Hit Men”, Zisk, Baines, Spencer, et.al, who set a league record for home runs, lighting up the “Monster” in center field. The “Monster” was that exploding scoreboard introduced to Comiskey by Bill Veeck in 1960. With it's upper deck entirely enclosing the field, the reverberations from the exploding fireworks could not only be heard but felt through the entire ball yard. Moreover if the wind was blowing off the lake, the debris from the fireworks display would rain down on the opposing pitcher, as the crowd celebrated. During one such occasion as the Sox hitter was rounding the bases, and the opposing team's manager was walking slowly out to the mound to retrieve his battered pitcher, Nancy struck up the chorus from the old Steam hit, a chorus that has become an anthem for home teams and underdogs everywhere.

“na na na na, na na na na
hey hey-ey, goodbye”

I can vividly remember Jack Morris, ace of the Detroit Tiger pitching staff during a game at old Comiskey. It was during the fourth of July weekend 1984, with Detroit and Chicago facing off again for the first time since Morris had no-hit the Sox at Comiskey Park in early April. It had been cold then, and the Sox' bats were frozen. Morris walked off the field, no-hitter in hand, and the Tigers went on to win 35 of their first 40 or so games on their way to a World Championship. But it was now July, it was hot and humid, and the Sox bats had come alive. In the previous game, catcher Carleton Fisk had cleared the roof in left field, a feat accomplished only a dozen or so times during the 80 year history of the yard. This night the Sox would send two balls into Armour park, shots that cleared the roof in left field. First Greg “the Bull” Luzinski, would send one over the roof into the night, then Ron Kittle would repeat the feat. As the scoreboard exploded and the debris was raining down, Tiger Manager Sparky Anderson made the long slow walk out to the mound to take his star pitcher out of the game. Giving the ball to Sparky, Jack started his long trek to the dugout. Foust, as had by now become customary, led the raucus crowd in yet another rendition of

“na na na na, na na na na
hey hey-ey goodbye”.

Jack Morris, looking up in disgust, gave the crowd the finger.

Ken Burns has made much of the psychic connection between sport generally, and baseball specifically, to American culture. We don't remember that until the 1930's we had no national anthem. That the “Star-Spangled Banner” is our national anthem is that it became popular nationally because it was used at the beginning of each baseball game, and the practice—incidentally, began at Old Comiskey Park, Chicago.

Likewise, but with differing results, the famous cat-call that has become the “na na na, hey-ey, goodbye” refrain also began at Old Comiskey Park, Chicago, although by now it has made it's way into nearly all sports venues. I bring this up because what gathered on the Washington Mall yesterday was a cross-section of Americana, a reflection of the country itself, and this, it became apparent, included some South-Siders.

As a life-long Chicago White Sox Fan, I take particular pleasure in seeing photos of the President with a White Sox ball cap perched upon his head. I also took particular pleasure in the crowd singing that signature refrain as the image of George W. Bush was broadcast on the Jumbotrons on the National Mall. As Michelle Obama was being introduced the public adress system was drowned out by the crowd who, seeing the image of 'Ol Two-Cows up on the screen began the catcall of Sox fans everywhere:

“na-na-na-na
na-na-na-na
hey-hey-ey goodbye”

Later, as Marine One, carrying now the former President from the White House to Andrews Air Force Base for his last trip aboard Air Force One to Texas circled one last time the White House and the Capitol Mall, the crowd once again raised it's voice in the full-throated cat-call:

“na-na-na-na
na-na-na-na
hey-hey-ey goodbye”

Joe Scarborough, on his “Morning Joe” program on MSNBC said this morning that what the crowd did constituted a “classless” and “despicable” act. I disagree. It was a delicious moment, one for the ages, to be savored as fine wine. The crowd could, after all, have stormed the Bastille and brought out the guillotine. It chose levity instead.

And so departed the worst President in the last century, perhaps the worst ever. What remains is for us to pick up the pieces.

January 19, 2009: The Sun Also Rises, Everywhere Around The World, Dancing In The Streets

“callin' out around the world
are you ready for a brand new beat?....

this is an invitation
across the nation
a chance for the folks to meet
there'll be laughin and singin' and music swinging
and dancin' in the streets

They're dancin' in Chicago
Down in New Orleans
Up in New York City...” Martha and the Vandellas “Dancin' in the Streets”(1)

The long national nightmare is nearly over. For nearly 40 years we have wandered in the darkness, a great solar eclipse which had blotted out the light of reason, wisdom, and justice. For forty years we have been groping with only the artificial light of the candle to lead our way. The end of conservatism is at hand and with it the wars on science, ethics, and sound public policies. Tomorrow we brace ourselves for the arrival of the new morning sun.


Indeed the entire planet is in open celebration. Beginning last night with the concerts on the mall, the whole world took a long sigh of relief and, almost as one put down for a few moments the burdens of life, and tuned in to the great American celebration. As we speak huge jumbotrons are not only placed on the Washington Mall in the District of Columbia but in sports arenas, college campuses, and other public places all around the world as all of humanity tunes in to witness the swearing in of Barack Hussein Obama as the next President of the United States. Yes, come tomorrow there will be dancing in the streets as America and the world greets the new President and gives old dubya the bum's rush.

It is difficult at this distance to determine what is the greater cause for celebration:the arrival of bright new leadership with all the promise that it implies; or the departure of what is unarguably the most venal, incompetent, and corrupt administration in United States' history. In the end, I suppose, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we are today celebrating the last day of the maladministration of George W. “'Ol Two-Cows” Bush. Let us hope and pray that we do not see the likes of him again in our otherwise distinguished national endeavor.

As the sun rises tomorrow morning on the Washington Mall, let us take a deep
breath of clean air, and with a smile on our face and a warmth in our hearts, let us
drink a toast to our new President. Then let's go out and join the world as we go
dancing in the streets.

Footnotes:

http://www.stlyrics.com/lyrics/thebigchill/dancinginthestreet.htm

January 17, 2009: Peace Train, Come Join the Living, Come Take Me Home Again

“Now I've been crying lately,
 thinking about the world as it is
why must we go on hating, 
why can't we live in bliss
'cause out on the edge of darkness, 
there rides a peace train
oh peace train take this country, 
come take me home again”(1)

                 ----Cat Stevens, “Peace Train” 1968

As the clouds and winds gather in what is becoming a 'perfect storm', the nation reels as it tries to find it's bearings. The Commerce Department released numbers showing that the Holiday season was the worst for American Business since the dark days of Richard Nixon. Consumer spending dropped 2.7% in December and the economy shed another 530,000 jobs. The value of GM stock has dropped to it's lowest level since before I was born wiping out a generation of wealth. What is left of domestic manufacturers  breaking under the strain. Yesterday the Bank of America posted a quarterly loss of 2.3 billion and was saved from imminent collapse, albeit momentarily, by the federal TARP or bail-out money. Circuit City has announced that it is closing all if its over 500 stores and is going out of business, forcing an additional 34,000 people into the streets. Unemployment in Michigan, even by ridiculously conservative federal measurement, now stands at over 10 %; the real numbers are probably half again as high. New claims for unemployment are now inundating the system, so great is the crush that the computer systems in several states, South Carolina among them, have crashed. With the nation mired in two endless wars and, as the American and, increasingly, the world economic order teeters on the verge of collapse, the nation turns it's worried eyes to the incoming administration.

“Get your bags together, go bring your good friends too
'Cause it's getting nearer, it soon will be with you

Now come and join the living, its not so far from you
and its getting nearer, it soon will all be true” (1)

Out on the edge of darkness there rides a peace train. As I write it is T-minus 71 hours and 54 minutes till Barack Obama takes the oath of office and swears to faithfully execute the laws and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
As I speak he is, as Lincoln before him, aboard a train—in this instance the 2009 Inaugural Train-- winding his way through Pennsylvania toward the Nation's Capitol. Rivers of blood, years of darkness have been the measure of our time. Out of the darkness comes a bright new morning.

“Now I've been happy lately, thinking about the good things to come
and I believe it could be, something good has begun

Oh I've been smiling lately, dreaming about the world as one
and I believe it could be, some day its going to come

'Cause out on the edge of darkness, there rides a peace train
oh peace train save this country, come take me home again.” (1)

Footnotes:

1. http://www.lyricsfreak.com/c/cat+stevens/peace+train_20028199.html

November 5, 2008: Oh Happy Day, Shot Heard 'Round the World, The Sun Also Rises.

“Oh happy day
oh happy day....


Yesterday, at high noon, the good Marshall was gunned down in the streets of Tombstone by a young Jedi who had said he'd had enough. It was a resounding drubbing, carrying at latest count 28 states with Missouri and South Carolina too close to call. States that had not gone Democratic since Lyndon Johnson's landslide in 1964 returned to the fold. Moreover Obama made serious inroads into the deep South carrying Florida and Virginia, and the far west winning Nevada and Colorado. He even carried Indiana a state that for a short period in the twentieth century was run by the Ku Klux Klan.

It was an impressive victory winning as a Democrat, for only the second time since the FDR-Truman years' over 50 per cent of the popular vote. In the end Obama was able, by demonstrating an ease and a confidence on the political high wire, to convince America that he, not John McCain, is the safer bet in these very troubling times.

Obama's resounding victory was, like Lexington and Concord, a shot 'heard round the world' as the entire planet seemed to erupt in joy as a combination of elation and relief replaced fear and loathing. In Chicago's Grant Park, scene of angry rioting 40 years earlier, a crowd of over 150,000 happy souls gathered to greet the new President-Elect. Tears of joy ran down faces of every color. Old civil rights workers like Jesse Jackson, who had seen the dream come true in his lifetime, openly wept tears of joy.

While not winning the majority of the white vote, Obama carried a number of predominately white states. States like Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Colorado not known for having large minority populations.
The numbers beneath the numbers reveal the broad trends as Obama improved on the performance of Gore and Kerry among white voters overall, and winning by a 10 point margin white voters aged 18-29 (1). There was much discussion during the primary season concerning Obama's ability to win the votes of those making less than $50,000 annually. According to the exit polls Obama crushed McCain winning by a margin of 73% to 25% those making under $15,000, 60%-37% those making $15-30,000, and 55%-43% among those earning $30-50,000. In fact McCain bested Obama only in the categories of those making between $50-75,00 and those making between $100-200,000.
Oddly, given the Rescumlican screed about Obama's socialist tendencies Obama in fact drubbed McCain 52%-46% among those making over $200,000 annually.

Perhaps it isn't so odd. The last time a senator from Arizona ran for President the technocrats and professional classes deserted the Republican Party in droves. Likewise this time the more comfortable and well-to-do have deserted conservatism. This is demonstrated not only by his winning the majority of voters earning over $200,000 annually but winning over, for the first time in the history of the Democratic Party, a majority of college graduates. Those with some college education voted 51-47% for Obama; college graduates went 50-48% Democratic; while those with postgraduate educations went with Obama by a resounding 58%-40% (1). Not FDR, not Truman, not JFK nor LBJ, Carter or Clinton were able to convince a majority of the college educated to vote Democratic. Here is graphic evidence of a new coalition being born as groups that had heretofore voted Republican have shifted ground.

It is difficult to say, and only time will tell, how much of this is temporary and how much is permanent. Much will rest on how well the nation is governed in the next few years and how successful Obama will be in consolidating his gains. But he has laid to rest fears that he cannot appeal to working class white voters and he has expanded the Democratic presence not only geographically into the West and the South but among critical income and age groups, not the least the young, who have demonstrated themselves to be the cornerstone of the new governing coalition.

Yesterday America made history, demonstrating its boundless capacity to adapt and surprise. For forty years we have wandered in the wilderness and groped in the darkness.
But, we have learned, the sun also rises. Yesterday America took another great stride toward creating a more perfect union. Yesterday America looked into the mirror and beheld in it's reflection the face of Barack Obama


Footnotes:

1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/

November 2, 2008: Further Reflections on the Swine, Kicking and Squealing, No Badge of Courage

“The size of our challenges have outgrown the smallness of our politics.”
----Barack Obama, speech at Henderson, Nevada 11/01/08


Obama has been quite right to make this election a referendum on the “generation of swine”. The swine have held sway over the electoral process for going on four decades now and have done their level best to lay waste every last vestige of our ancestor's legacy. Following the siren song of greed they have done their level best to realize Newt Gingrich's dream of returning America to the glory days of the roaring '20's. It is now 1929 and the time has come for this country to pry from the throat of the republic the cold fingers of this “boomer” generation. It is time to end the death grip of this “Generation of Swine”.

The swine will not go quietly for they have had their snouts and both front trotters in the trough for far too long now. No instead they will have to be forced from the trough kicking and squealing. It is an unpleasant task but a necessary one in order to get on with the nation's business.

Of late the good Marshall of Tombstone and the Guttersnipe have been about the country accusing Obama of being a socialist. Quoting his remark made during an exchange with “Joe the Plumber”, about “spreading the wealth a little”, the McCain campaign has torn the words out of context and blown it up into a full blown ideological confrontation between “Capitalism” and “Socialism”, even as McCain joined the ranks of those who moved to save the Capitalist from himself by way of huge injections of government funds into suddenly unstable institutions. Nevertheless adopting Adams' view that every American is an aristocrat on the make, the good Marshall was found making his last stand on Main Street deploring the lurking “socialism” and decrying Obama for wanting to take money from the well-to-do (the fittest and therefore the deserving in the eyes of the Social Darwinists) and giving it to those who “pay no taxes at all”. This line is met with the predictable chorus of boos from the assembled and is taken to mean the lazy and shiftless welfare recipients; the 'unfit' and, therefore, the 'undeserving'. While the good Marshall makes such references frequently on the stump he appears to do so with some discomfort, half believing his own press releases. To shore up this line of attack the Rescumlican slime machine brought out that old Austrian Arnold Swartznegger who promptly tells audiences, after mocking Obamas evident thinness and body physique, that he fled the old country because it was socialist. Some appropriate surrogate in the Democratic camp needs to respond by telling Arnold that Obama is more fully developed than the governor is certain more important areas. Then, after a pregnant pause, say “the brain". He possesses a more superior intelligence than the Governor of California as evident by the political party he chose to join.

Political Columnist David Broder, discussing a column he wrote in the Washington Post on NBC's “Meet the Press” today said that McCain has run a campaign free of racism. I disagree. To hold such a position is to give McCain a free pass, one which he does not deserve.

McCain rightly deserves the calumny of history for the campaign he waged for the presidency this year. This business about “Socialism” goes directly to the point. On the surface it is made to appear as a simple, albeit false, ideological dichotomy in which the voter is asked to chose between two competing economic systems. This is, of course, nonsense inasmuch as Obama is no more a socialist than either Teddy or Franklin Roosevelt, or Dwight Eisenhower for that matter. But to pose the election in those terms is to set up a convenient 'straw man' to flagellate for the benefit of the electorate. It isn't the first time an overt appeal to the greed, gluttony and avarice of the American people has been made, nor is it the first time that the public has been underestimated. And, of course, it makes perfect sense if one hopes to ride to power on the backs of real swine.

But the issue as presented cuts much deeper into the psyche of the nation. Beneath the ideological and pseudo-ideological posturing runs a message that hopes to further open the deep divisions of class and race. One hears it in how McCain follows his introduction of the issue. Charging Obama with being, at heart, a “Socialist”, he then accuses his opponent of wanting to take money from the rich, thereby “punishing success”, and giving it to “those who pay no taxes at all” thereby rewarding the unsuccessful and the undeserving.

This is, of course, complete nonsense for the Obama plan is aimed primarily at middle class tax relief. But no matter, lets take the Marshall at his word. Lets assume that that the Marshall is right and that Obama wants to take money from the rich, successful and therefore deserving and give it to the Welfare Queens. What are we to make of the characterization? For decades the face of welfare has been a face of minorities. Never mind that until well into the 1990's the majority of poor in America were white. Never mind that with the seven million that have fallen from the middle class into poverty under the Bush Administration the face of poverty in America may again be white. The fact is that when most Americans think about poverty in America, when they think about it at all, they do not conjure up their own image. Think about it. Obama was ridiculed as being a “social activist working in the projects”. Now he wants to take money from the 'fittest' and give it to “those who pay no taxes at all”. This isn't the first time campaigns have been waged against “Welfare Queens”. Ask George Corley Wallace. Class divisions in America have racial overtones. Here is high relief is the secret of the Republican success and the reason the good Marshall has finally used his last bullet in his shootout with Obama at high noon. By waging war against 'welfare' he can unabashedly support the rich while using race to keep the middle classes in line. This is why you will search in vain for any references by McCain to the middle class in America. To bring it up would highlight his weakness, for he has nothing in his bag of tricks for them. Instead he will appeal, as the Republican party has always appealed—at least since the days of Richard Nixon and Kevin Phillips—to the middle class using race, not economics, as the medium. That's how, as Phillips so astutely observed all those years ago, one goes about forging a majority when one's natural constituency is a mere 7 percent.

Is it not clear why the good Marshall begged off talking about economics from the first, saying that he didn't know as much as perhaps he should about the subject? Is it not clear why internal memo's leaked from his campaign saying that McCain needed to shift the subject from the economy to Obama because to talk about the economy would mean certain defeat? And so, true to recent form, the Rescumlicans have gone about the business of devising weapons of mass diversion. They have set up a socialist straw man, questioned Obama's character, patriotism, religious convictions, even going so far as saying that he “pals around with terrorists”. None of this, given the current economic crisis, has gained traction. And so it is back to race. Race reintroduced through the back door, but race nonetheless. Reverend Wright meet the Socialist Bogeyman and the Welfare Queen by extension. The more things change the more they remain the same.

David Broder is wrong. The Marshall isn't wearing the badge of courage.

June 7, 2008: The Taming of the Shrew, Referendum on the Swine, Winning on Points

With the results of last week’s primaries, the long contest has now come to an end with Obama emerging with a clear majority of duly elected delegates. With the votes having been counted in South Dakota and Montana, a rush of Super Delegates pressured by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid began to climb onto the Obama train as it was leaving the station. By mid-week, Obama had clinched the nomination. Today Hillary scheduled a speech before her staff and supporters in which she announced the suspension of her campaign and, albeit belatedly, congratulated Barack on his historical victory.

“She came this close,” wrote Katha Pollit in Nation. “Love her or loathe her, the big story here is Americans saw a woman who was a serious, popular, major-party candidate. Clinton showed herself to be tough, tireless, supersmart and definitely ready to lead on that famous Day One. She raised a ton of money and won 17.5 million votes from men and women. She was exciting, too: she and Obama galvanized voters for six long months—in some early contests, each of them racked up more votes than all the Republican candidates combined. Once the bitterness of the present moment has faded, that’s what people will remember. Because she normalized the concept of a woman running for President, she made it easier for women to run for every office, including the White House. That is one reason women and men of every party and candidate preference, and every ethnicity too, owe Hillary Clinton a standing ovation, even if they can’t stand her.” (1)


Amen. Let us take a moment here and tip our hat to Hillary, and to Barack, for accomplishing what no one thought was possible only a short time ago, making this election cycle, whatever its outcome, truly a transformative political experience.

A year ago, Hillary Clinton stood before America as the once and future Queen; the heir apparent representing a government in waiting. The nomination, if not the Presidency, was hers for the taking. With the backing of Big Bubba and his much feared political machine, with the support of thousands and the ability to raise over 100 million dollars before the first votes were cast in Iowa, with her name recognition, and facing a field of perceived political lightweights, Clinton appeared a lead pipe cinch to capture the nomination. No one expected the contest to go past Super Tuesday. By early February, the common wisdom had it, this race would be over.

No one, it appears, except the young upstart, Barack Obama of Illinois. Blinded perhaps by hubris and, in the end, believing their own press releases, the Clintons quite simply didn’t see Obama coming. It is a cardinal sin in politics to underestimate one’s opponent. As in baseball, where anyone with a bat in their hands is dangerous, events can change suddenly. Many a would-be, odds-on favorite to be President of the United States can attest to that. The history of this republic is littered with the shattered remains of such ambition. Ask President Aaron Burr, Stephen Douglas, George McClellan, Samuel Tilden, William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, Bob Dole, or Al Gore, not to mention many lesser lights. Barack Obama proved to be a formidable opponent with prodigious powers to inspire crowds, build a first-class political organization, and unparalleled ability to raise money. By the end of last year, the Obama camp began to match the Clintons dollar for dollar, and by early in the primary season began to outstrip the Clinton fund raising ability, outspending her in some states by multiples of 3 and 4 to one. It was a serious mistake compounded by many, many, others.

First was her inability to apologize for voting to give Bush war powers. Instead, we were presented with a long series of rationalizations, in which Hillary justified her vote saying that she wanted to give the President authority in order to make it possible for weapons inspectors to go into Iraq and in order to build a coalition in the United Nations in the event war broke out. While critical of Bush for both his leading the nation into war and his subsequent conduct of the conflict, she always stopped short of admitting mistake. This was, in the wake of a president who famously remarked in 2004 that he couldn’t think of anything — despite the failure to create a single net job in four years, or leading us into the greatest quagmire since Vietnam — that he would do differently. America had seen enough of leadership that cannot bend, cannot change, and cannot admit mistakes. Robert Kennedy, in his time, admitted such mistakes over Vietnam and apologized to the country for his part in leading us into the morass, Hillary couldn’t quite find the words. This gave Barack, as Chris Matthews pointed out on “Hardball,” a huge opening to become the ‘change agent’; to become the vehicle through which disgust with the current state of affairs would best find voice. Openly questioning the value of experience if such experience is leading us unto quagmires, Barack made the most of the Clinton misstep and positioned himself as the more ‘transformative’ candidate in the race.

Secondly, the Clinton campaign, after having lost the mantle of change, failed to develop an adequate campaign theme. The second rule in politics, after never underestimating one’s opponent, is to identify what makes the voting public most anxious and address those concerns. The election is, or rather should be after all, about the ‘people’. So while the country fretted about the emerging debacle in the Middle East, as we watched our standing in the international community dwindle to near nothing, as we witnessed the skyrocketing rise in energy and food prices and the near collapse of the housing market, the fears of the republic were addressed by the Clinton campaign with the slogan “Ready on Day One”. This merely served to beg the question: “Ready to do what?”

Hillary came off the blocks, stressing what her campaign thought to be two salient points: that her gender would automatically make her a ‘transformative’ political figure, breaking through heretofore impenetrable political barriers by definition as she progressed through the primaries. The problem with this strategy was two-fold. First, against a normal field of white males this might have worked, except when confronted with the person of Barack Obama, a man of mixed race. He, too, brought with him such transformative potential by so participating. Secondly, this strategy betrayed a campaign that, thematically at least, told the nation that it wasn’t about America but instead was all about Hillary. It was the perfect ‘Boomer’ gaffe, a genuine reflection of the ‘me’ generation — the Generation of Swine — that had by this election cycle all but worn out its relevance and its welcome. Obama, demonstrating superb political instincts quickly made the election a referendum on the swine, openly calling for an end to the endless food fights which are the products of, “conflicts hatched on college campuses forty years ago.” The result was that by the end of January, Hillary’s campaign had lost its majority black support, and was increasingly forced to rely on older white women — boomers — for both the money and the votes to keep her in the race. Obama had stolen the change issue and become the ‘transformative’ candidate in the race, eclipsing Clinton to such a degree that both Hillary and Bill were out on the hustling, mocking the young Jedi and openly campaigning against the very idea of change itself.

Third, Hillary had failed to surround herself with competent and professional campaign staff and advisers. Millions were paid to consultants who clearly had no idea how to fashion a viable message. In addition, she hired people like Mark Penn who erroneously thought that California was a winner-take-all primary and that winning it would sew up the nomination. Penn is a seedy aging boomer who, when not delving in Democratic Party politics, works as a lobbyist representing foreign governments. He is old enough to know better. One simply has to recall the Democratic Convention of 1972 in which the McGovern forces — which had won California — needed all the votes in order to win the nomination. McGovern had spent the best part of the previous four years reworking party rules eliminating the winner-take-all formula in favor of proportional representation. But California, in 1972, was one of the last states to still have the old rule in effect. The McGovern campaign was compelled to violate the candidate’s own stated position in order to garner all the delegates from the state, but it was made clear that California would have to abandon the way it awarded its delegates and bring their process in line with the national party rules by 1976. California has, therefore, apportioned delegates accordingly for over 30 years now. Mark Penn should have known that and, in the absence of the knowledge of such details, someone on the staff should have questioned him.

This debacle, born by an incomplete understanding of the process, proved to be the ‘Merkle Boner’ of this campaign, for it ended up costing Clinton the nomination. By not understanding the rules and acting accordingly, the campaign was forced to extend itself beyond Super Tuesday, an event — incredibly — for which there were no plans. The Obama camp, acting on the rules and planning for a long war of attrition, out organized the Clintons in caucus states and smaller states with open primaries. By winning enough of the vote in the larger states to stay competitive, Obama, even on Super Tuesday, was able to win more delegates despite losing the big states of New York and California. As the campaign then went through the Midwest and into the heartland, the Clintons discovered, to their dismay, that with each upcoming contest they would be confronted with a massively funded, well-organized opponent who stood waiting for them.

The Clintons were then forced into retreat in what became a long ‘scorched earth’ campaign to increase Obama’s negatives by relentless attack thereby attempting to salvage what diminishing hope remained by demonstrating that he could not win. In the process Hillary discovered her voice and became a formidable campaigner in her own right. But the tone of the campaign only served to further raise her already historically high personal negatives as well. In the end, both candidates staggered to the finish line with Obama outlasting her and winning on points.

In the end, the campaign went, more or less, precisely the way the Obama strategists had hoped and predicted. They knew that they could not take out the Empire with one blow, but that to successfully challenge they would have to win a long, drawn-out war of attrition. Obama demonstrated in the process to not only be an effective speaker, but a man capable of building a first-class professional organization that proved sensitive to addressing the concerns of his audience, as well as utilizing the latest technologies and medium of communications. The Clintons, on the contrary, presented the country with a much more amateurish, tone-deaf, and sluggish enterprise, at times wholly out of step with the nation. She was, perhaps, not the best vessel in which to launch this quest to sail on new political water, but she proved herself more than adequate. Despite entering this contest with the highest personal negatives on record, Hillary nevertheless inspired the nation with her grit and determination, her passion for health care, and her ability to inspire; winning by her count more votes in the primaries than anyone in American history. Obama, recognizing her contribution, said that through her efforts, the lives of his two little daughters have been given greater promise and hope. The life of our daughter as well.

Footnotes:

1. Pollit, Katha. “Iron My Skirt’ The Nation June 23, 2008 pg 10

June 3, 2008: End of the Slugfest, Unheralded Achievements, Opportunities Lost

The long slugfest between Barack and Hillary ended last night with the country being presented with yet another set of ‘bookends’, this time Hillary winning in South Dakota and Barack prevailing by similar margins in Montana. South Dakota went for Hillary 55-45%, 54,000-43,000 votes respectively; Montana reversed the tables voting for Obama 56-41%, 102-74,000 votes respectively. The long slog through the primaries presented the nation with Barack Obama winning the majority of pledged delegates chosen by primary election or caucus becoming in the process the putative Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

On this night, Hillary and John McCain would have none of it. Hillary, in her ‘victory’ speech in South Dakota, did not even pause to acknowledge her opponent’s triumph in Montana, much less his historic achievement. Instead, focusing on her victory here and in Puerto Rico last weekend and falsely claiming victory in the contest for most votes cast, which includes the muddled contests in Florida and Michigan, she touted herself as the real winner. Ignoring the only votes that matter — the delegate count —s he pledged to carry her fight all the way to the convention. McCain, for his part, said nothing concerning the historical achievement of his fellow Senators, but instead focused on the mundane.

This campaign has been beset by a series of lost opportunities. As noted earlier in this narrative, the victory by Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire, marking the first victory by a woman in a contest for President in an open primary, went unheralded, not only by Obama, but the mainstream press. Many more victories were to follow, but since the opening bell at Iowa, Hillary has never led in the delegate count. For all intents and purposes, this race has been over since Super Tuesday when the Empire proved unable to dispatch the young Jedi — a verdict confirmed by a string of victories throughout March. As the campaign progressed, or rather regressed, each Clinton victory served only to buoy the hopes of those who sought to reach a different political milestone by breaking through a different set of barriers. The truth is that both candidates succeeded, and in their success, were blinded to the achievement of the other. As a result, the emergence last night of Barack Obama as the nominal nominee of his party, a milestone in the history of this republic, went uncelebrated by at least half of his own party. Such are the politics of this Generation of Swine.

May 21, 2008: Bookends, We Rarely Speak with One Voice, The Class Ceiling

The primary election returns last night from Kentucky and Oregon were almost like looking at the returns from two different countries. Hillary crushed Obama in Kentucky, winning 65% of the vote to Obama’s mere 30%. With 459,000 votes to Obama’s 209,000, Clinton took every major demographic except the black vote. But the news out of Oregon was exactly opposite, with Obama besting Clinton 59-41% 361,000 to Hillary’s 252,000. On the night, Clinton outpolled Obama, but the Jedi inched ever closer to the finish line. Time is running out for the Clinton campaign.

Much has been made of the regional or sectional divides that make up the matrix of the American landscape. One of the interesting things about studying American politics and history is the rich panorama one confronts as the country slowly reveals itself. As a child, I remember those long journeys down highway 66 through Illinois on our way to Missouri then Arkansas. What struck me then, and still occasionally catches one off-guard, is how short a distance one needs to travel to hear the changes in local accent and dialect. But not far beneath the surface, other variations and divisions present themselves, differences over industry and trade, religion, politics. Occasionally these divisions have manifested themselves in deep sectional divides, producing, in time, conflict and even civil war. One is immediately impressed by the country’s many voices and a close study of our history reveals that however persuasive our leaders we rarely speak with one voice.

Last night, the two primary elections presented us with a set of bookends. Kentucky, a slave state that remained nominally in the Union during the Civil War, had, and still has, deep economic and cultural connections to the South. Oregon is part of the cluster of North Western states, like Washington with a very different historical experience, today trending much more toward high-tech industry and at the vanguard of environmental concerns. Reflecting the growing divide between the Clinton and Obama camps, as the Democratic Party threatens to split into its constituent parts, Kentucky — responding overwhelmingly to the ‘gas tax holiday’ scheme stolen by Hillary from John McCain and reflecting her strength among the less educated “white” voters - rallied overwhelmingly to Hillary’s cause. Oregon, like Obama, seeing the ‘gas tax holiday’ as a shell game and a sham, and more concerned with long-term environmental issues and the reduction of the use of fossil fuels rallied to the Jedi. The Obama-Clinton breakdown in Oregon also reflected a significant contrast from Kentucky.

Forty years ago Bobby Kennedy lost his only election to Gene McCarthy in Oregon, demonstrating that Oregon is not fertile ground for a tribune of the underclass. Oregonians are better educated and more upper-middle class. Here, along the shores of the Pacific, Hillary encountered the upper limits of her campaign; not a ‘glass’, but a ‘class’ ceiling.

May 16, 2008: Raw Politics, The Political Mendoza Line, Bullshit in Cowboy Boots

‘Ol Two-Cows, perhaps the most divisive and certainly the most arrogant political figure in at least a generation did, however, make great strides in uniting the Democratic Party. Rushing to Obama's defense, Senators Joe Biden (D-Del), Jim Webb (D-Va), and Chris Dodd (D-Conn) worked the talk-show circuit, savaging Bush and his Rescumlican surrogates for their remarks. Even Hillary was driven back into the Democratic camp as the president’s remarks, by forcing her to defend her position as well as Obama’s, drove a wedge between the McCain and Clinton camps who were heretofore making common cause against Obama. “Biden, who made waves this week by telling a Politico reporter that Bush’s comments were ‘bull___” [shit],” appeared on ABC’s “This Week” to discuss Bush’s comments before the Israeli Knesset and defend the likely Democratic nominee. ‘“It was so outrageous,” said [the] Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman…”This is raw, raw politics demeaning to the president of the United States of America.” Then Biden proceeded to point out that the Bush Administration has had direct talks with Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi, ‘”a ‘known terrorist’ as Biden put it.”’ (1)

Two other Democratic Senators, Jim Webb and Chris Dodd, “pointed out that previous Republican presidents have met with rogue leaders without giving up the option of military force.” (1) ‘ “If…Bush were to use the right historical example, he should be looking at China in the 1970s,” Webb said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”’ (1) But Joe Biden was the most vociferous in his defense, correctly pointing out that both current Defense Secretary Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have advocated direct talks with Iran moving the Foreign Relations Chairman to coyly suggest that perhaps they should be fired.

“If Bush were to use the right historical example…” Oh my. If Bush had only the slightest idea, the most cursory understanding, perhaps a proper example would have leaped to mind. But one cannot operate on such assumptions in this White House. Remember, this is the very president who, incredulously, asked the Brazilian ambassador, “You have Black people in Brazil?” The problem with ‘Ol Two-Cows is that as his presidency wanes, his polling numbers now dropping below Nixonian levels — the political equivalent of baseball’s ‘Mendoza Line’(2) — his maladroit accusations, explanations and justifications serve only to further solidify his standing as perhaps, short of Zachary Taylor, the most ignorant man ever to occupy the presidential office. Early in this bastard administration, when America was stunned and reeling from the political larceny that brought this man to power, the country exhibited an unwarranted propensity to forgive his malapropisms, and excuse his ignorance as one befitting a Governor of Texas. But with each emerging crisis, and the Chief Executive’s — make that the Great Decider’s — wretched response, it became increasingly obvious that the country was not being led by a man whose native intelligence was betrayed by an inability to master the common language. What became increasingly clear was that his use of language reflected precisely what lay beneath: an empty suit, an intellectually challenged man who presented the Neo-Cons with a blank slate — an empty vessel — into which they could pour or write whatever they wanted. The awful truth is not simply that George W. Bush has no intellectual curiosity. It is that he is not smart enough to be curious, and into his empty head the Neo-Cons could deposit, as Senator Biden calls it, all the ‘bullshit’ that one man can hold. And so the critics of the administration re-emerge as modern Neville Chamberlains playing the wimps to ‘Ol Two-Cows’ John Wayne as Winston Churchill.

Napoleon Bonaparte once described French Foreign Minister Charles de Talleyrand, a man of great political acumen who survived the Ancient Regime, the Revolution, Robespierre, Bonaparte, and the Restoration, as “shit in silk stockings”. ‘Ol Two-Cows, a man of much lesser talents and no political acumen who nevertheless survived two military quagmires, the loss of a major city to a hurricane, two dubious elections, and an imperial vice presidency, can best be described as “bullshit in cowboy boots”.

Footnotes:

1. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10432.html.
2. The Mendoza Line is a baseball term referring to “an offensive threshold below which (a) players’ presence in the Major Leagues cannot be justified despite their defensive abilities” The term is said to have been coined by Kansas City Royals’ great George Brett for shortstop Manny Mendoza who hit .198 during the baseball season of 1979. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wikki/Mendoza_Line. Keith Olbermann on his “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” is credited with creating the “Mendoza Line of Presidential politics” while referring to Rudy Giuliani’s withdrawal from the 2008 contest for the Republican Presidential nomination. I suggest that the true “Mendoza Line” was the Nixon approval rating during the waning days of his administration soon to be superseded by the current occupant in the White House.