Whatever a Man Sows, That He Will Also Reap

Rick McKee cartoon, (c) 2015 Cagle Cartoons

The Republican Party is in trouble, as is indicated by their current representative vying for the highest office in the land. When trying to find out why they went wrong, however, the most useful tool would be a mirror.

Donald Trump has gone from entertaining sideshow to dangerous demagogue. I'll admit at first that I fell into the attitude that he was a flash in the pan; something that, like summer, would be wrapped up by Labor Day.

Not so. Today, Trump's numbers are as high as ever. The media is tripping over themselves to let him on their shows, just so he can lie over and over again while saying that the media is scum. It's a form of self-flagellation that not only hurts the media, but hurts the entire political atmosphere in America.

The problem is that the American echo chamber, when replayed abroad, is portraying Donald Trump as speaking for the U.S. If every time someone overseas turns the television on and sees Trump bloviating on banning Muslim travel to the U.S., or saying the Paris attacks would have gone differently if the victims had been armed, or that Muslims need to carry special ID, what else are they supposed to think?

In the same way that so many people think that ISIS and Al Qaeda represent Islam, many people abroad are beginning to think that Donald Trump represents America. Neither are true, but the truth gets lost in perception time and time again.

The GOP should not be surprised that the three current leading candidates to represent them in the 2016 election are Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and Ben Carson. Three people that, if they boarded a New York subway and went into their stump speech, would have rational people rolling their eyes and wishing for Showtime.

The Republican Party took a hard right when it came to religion and perceived morality in the 1980s with the election of Ronald Reagan and his use of the Religious Right. Barry Goldwater - the epitome of a pre-Reagan conservative - predicted the fall of the GOP 20 years ago, when he warned Republicans about letting the extreme religious portion of their party take over.

They didn't heed that warning, and the result is that decades of sowing that side of the party has reaped them with three national embarrassments as their best candidates. The party's reliance on partisan media, their willingness to court white voters almost exclusively, and their inability to criticize Trump because they think he's a victim has led them to their current position. And they have no one the blame but themselves.

How to Fix The Republican Party in One Step

The United States Capitol (Flickr/Dray-Dray)

One of the major setbacks of the Democratic Party is that it is a big tent party; too many factions within the party. Looking back at the health care debate it is glaringly obvious that while it can be great to have a supermajority on paper, practically it may not work out as well as perceived. The Blue Dog Democrats immediately come to mind when thinking about internal strife within the party.

This has been the 21st century Democrat's problem: lack of party unity. It's not necessarily the Democratic Party's fault, because in order to have such a large party that aims to be as inclusive as possible you're bound to have some intraparty disagreements. When you have an opponent in George Bush (read: Dick Cheney and Karl Rove) who is able to keep their party in lockstep, convincing the nation to go to war with a country we had no business warring with while eroding civil liberties in the name of safety, it is going to be very difficult to rally any party together to fight it, especially the Democrats. But in 2008 the Dems did just that and then blew it as only the Democrats can.

But they've been handed a bit of luck, as the pre-2006 Republican Party simply does not exist. It is plagued by the infighting that doomed Obama's domestic legislative agenda from 2008-2010. The fact that the two of the past three State of the Union addresses had two Republican responses, one official and the other unsanctioned, is evidence of that on a macro level. The drama around the Boehner speaker vote can point to this on a micro level. Simply put, the Republican party is in crisis.

The worst part of the whole thing for Republicans is that now is the time to reinvent the party, but instead of coming up with a more dynamic platform to speak to the younger generation disillusioned by Obama's Bush-esque foreign policy and drama-filled presidency (whether he is to blame for the latter is another question), they move further to the right. Their 2012 candidates were embarrassing. They chose to put forth Mitt Romney, one of the most boring and out of touch individuals in recent history (honestly, I'd probably rather have a drink with Al Gore, which is saying a lot) and Paul Ryan, who got smoked by a much-ridiculed and jokey VP Biden in an embarrassing debate. Throw in your fringe candidates who were not distanced enough from the party (Richard Murdouck, Todd Akin) and you're bound to lose favor with the nation, even self-described Republicans. We're starting to see this occur.

Here's what the Republican Party needs to do: drop the culture war and stop with the self-victimization over social issues. Obama is not a Marxist, gay marriage will not ruin yours, and as much as it may pain the Republican Party to hear it, separation of church and state is a major part of this country's founding. Until the GOP realizes this, there will be no groundswell movement of young, disillusioned voters to their side of the aisle. Until Rush Limbaugh and Fox News talking heads no longer hold so much power in the party, masses of young people will steer clear from the GOP.

There can be two ways for the current dual-party system to go. One of the parties can adapt and bring in a fed up, young generation of voters and dominate until at least 2020. Or a new party can emerge - maybe a coalition of liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats (again, as long as they're not overly focused on some made up culture war) who feel their parties are missing out on a huge opportunity for votes (and they'd be right). If the two parties increase the polarization we've seen in Washington, Juan Linz may have to update his famous piece on presidential democracy. Let's hope we don't get to that point.

Correction 22 February 2013: A previous version of this post said that VP Biden smoked Ron Paul in a debate, when in reality it was Paul Ryan who was embarrassed that night.

2012 Election Primer: Obama and Romney

Obama and Romney (Politico)

So after a bunch of requests (read: 3) to write up an election primer, I decided that it is time to give the people what they want: to know what a random 20-something in New York who thinks he knows more than he does feels is the best candidate to cast your ballot for in November.

I began this election season promising myself that I would vote for neither candidate and instead write someone in. President Obama, in my opinion (and I can't explain to you the amount of flak I've received for this) has been an underwhelming president when compared to the candidate he was in 2008. And that last sentence fragment is important: when compared to the candidate he was in 2008. All in all, Obama's done some good things domestically (repealing DADT, his better-late-than-never support of marriage equality, healthcare reform).

That's only one side of the coin, however. I've chronicled my disappointment with President Obama numerous times on this blog (here, here, and here to begin with). One thing that you'll notice about those articles (and most of my gripes about Obama) is that his foreign policy is, in a word, horrible. It is unfathomable to me that those who derided Bush's war mongering will defend Obama for 2012.

Obama is leading this country in the wrong direction, but not in the way that Fox News would have you believe. Precedents are being set in the Obama White House that could have dire consequences down the road.

For one, take the drone program (a program that is technically entirely classified). We have drones flying over many countries - countries with whom we are at war and countries with whom we are not at war. This sets a serious precedent for other countries who may want to fly drones over the United States when they get the same technology we currently have.

Moving beyond the precedent it sets, however, is the diplomatic damage that drone strikes carry given their civilian casualties. We conduct drone operations in countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia; countries we are not at war with. This comes back to the precedent setting: can you imagine if Islamabad began flying drones, making strikes and killing American civilians?

A drone equipped with weapons and a camera (Wired)

But it's not only about the drones. It's about extralegal killings of American citizens in non-war zones. It's about a dubiously legal "kill list," despite a longstanding executive order against such assassinations. It's about not closing what will certainly be viewed as a black-eye on this nation in the form of Guantanamo.

Going back to precedents, Obama seems to be making the same, if not similar, mistakes his predecessors made in Afghanistan. During the Libya non-war, I decried the support for the untrained rebels fighting Colonel Qaddafi. Throwing supplies and intel at a group not ready for it is not good foreign policy. In fact, when I heard that the attack on the late Ambassador Chris Stevens was coordinated I wondered if any of the attackers were former Libyan rebels who had received training or materiel from the U.S. or other NATO nations. We've seen similar problems with green on blue attacks in Afghanistan in which US-trained Afghan forces attack US soldiers.

It is for these reasons that I simply felt that I could not vote for Barack Obama come November. That view is beginning to change, however, and it has nothing to do with anything Obama is doing.

I knew I was not going to vote for the Republican candidate no matter who it was. The post-Reagan conservative is simply too beholden to the religious right (cue the famous Barry Goldwater quote). You look at candidates like Rick Santorum or Rick Perry and you shake your head wondering what has happened to the Republican Party.

Now, Mitt Romney would appear to be the most palatable of the Republican candidates. Having lived in Massachusetts while he was governor and seeing the good things he did during that time (near-universal healthcare, turning around a large deficit), I have been amazed to see Romney backtrack from his accomplishments. In 2008 I asked a good friend his opinion of Romney and he replied that he was spineless and would say anything to get elected. His prescient statement has more than proven true.

We could get into the issues with Romney, but one problem is I simply don't know where he stands on anything. It changes so frequently that it makes Obama's flip-flop on gay marriage look like, well, evolution. Romney simply cannot choose one side of a position and keep it.

One thing I like in a president is transparency (this is another arena in which I've been disappointed with the Obama administration). Needless to say, the fact that Romney refuses to release his tax returns (a tradition started by his own father, to boot) does not sit well. The fact that he and his campaign allowed it to become a months-long campaign issue indicates to me that whatever he wanted to hide in the returns was worth hiding.

I was never going to cast my vote for Romney; that was decided well before he won the Republican nomination. But what Romney has done through his ridiculous missteps - the Egypt and Libya embassy attacks statement, the utter lack of specifics in any of his policy, the 47% irrationale - has made me so angry that I might actually vote for Obama out of spite for Romney. Romney's seeming ineptitude has moved me in such a way that I might actually vote for a president who I think is setting this country up for a very difficult foreign policy environment in the near and long-term future.

So to sum it up: I do not want to vote for Obama, but if voting for neither candidate would give Romney any kind of advantage (no matter how small) it actually may be irresponsible of me, given my worldview, to not vote Obama in November. I felt that the 2008 election was the first one in a while that gave the American people a chance to actually vote for a quality candidate, as opposed to the lesser of the two evils. And I maintain that Obama was a good candidate; he just could not live up to that candidate as president. This election will definitely fall into the "lesser of two evils category." I'm just angry that Romney's horrendous campaign may actually force me to choose one.

House Republicans Vote That Science Is Wrong

The House Republican leadership. All but
one Republican voted that climate change
is not a threat. (SF Examiner)

It's been clear for many years that despite a consensus within the scientific community on the imminent threat of anthropogenic climate change, Republican lawmakers, driven by political and other agendas, have spurned the science in favor of skepticism, distortion, and ultimately inaction.

Rep. Henry Waxman was one of the Democrats who, during the 111th Congress, led the charge to move the U.S. to finally address climate change-causing emissions in a systematic way, however flawed and watered down the bill ultimately was.

Yesterday, as an amendment to a House bill that seeks to strip the Environmental Protection Agency of its authority to regulate such emissions at all, Waxman offered the opportunity for Congress to reaffirm EPA's "endangerment finding" that greenhouse gas emissions are caused by humans and endanger public health by contributing to climate change.

This is not news. This is not being questioned on a serious level in the scientific community. But the House defeated the measure, 240-184, offering yet another "f*$% you" to science, in favor of politics. Only one Republican voted in favor of the amendment.

Paul Krugman's column in the Times on Sunday shares a laughable (yet depressing) account of Republican hearings on climate change, in which a scientist who was called to testify in order to refute the science of climate change was immediately shunned by Republicans when he presented findings that, in fact, empirical data points to the reality of human-caused changes to our climate.

And so, the House will overwhelmingly pass legislation by the end of the week repealing EPA's endangerment finding that greenhouse gases are bad for us. Luckily, there were only 50 Senators who were willing to do the same, which is not enough for a 3/5 majority needed for cloture. But the fight will continue over the next two years (including throughout the current budget "negotiations") to strip the U.S. of its last-resort mechanism to help address one of the most serious problems we are facing as a nation and as a planet.

Election Day Hangover: Can We Make Some Trades?

The Republicans have taken 60 seats in the House and six seats in the Senate, meaning that gridlock is all but ensured for at least the next two years as the lower house in Congress is controlled by Republicans and the upper chamber is Democratic.

A little part of me last night thought that maybe all of the polls were wrong; maybe the Democrats could hold onto the House and the Senate; maybe people would realize for all of the Democrats' failures the other side of the political coin held far worse consequences for progressives and, ultimately, the country.

But I wouldn't even be that mad if two things had occurred differently.

The first was Russ Feingold's loss. This really pissed me off. This is the only guy in the Senate who had the guts to stand up and vote against the PATRIOT Act in October of 2001, recognizing the fast-paced freedom erosion that the legislation would, and has, enabled. He said then that, "we must continue to respect our Constitution and protect our civil liberties in the wake of the attacks." This is an ideal that many of our elected officials have failed to live up to in this post-9/11 world. Honestly, I would take any other Democratic Senate loss over this one, including Chris Coons in Delaware. That's how important Russ Feingold is to the Senate.

The second election night loss that angered me was California's Prop 19. I don't even smoke and this proposition made so much sense. If tobacco is legal why is cannabis not? Why is the United States spending billions of dollars annually to "fight" this drug when it could be making billions of dollars a year taxing, regulating, and selling it? Marijuana has been shown to be less dangerous than tobacco, yet the government has no problem raking in billions of dollars in tax revenue from it. What's the difference?

It's expected that midterm elections tend to favor the party out of power, unless things are going swimmingly for the current administration, which is decidedly not true for Obama. If the Republicans can turn this country around without eroding the rights of gays, repealing a health care bill that will provide insurance to millions of formerly uninsured folks in this country, and giving Wall Street a carte blanche to do anything they want (again), then they just might hold onto power. If, however, they're mantra of "slash spending and cut taxes" goes no deeper than this simple slogan, then we're in trouble.

Photo - Russ Feingold (Flickr via Freedom to Marry)

Democrats Blow Yet Another Political Opportunity

The Hill just released a set of polls in which voters in 10 battleground districts were asked if they support the extension of the Bush tax cuts. When asked if they favored or opposed the "extension of the Bush tax cuts," responses broke along party lines, with an overwhelming majority of Republicans in favor, a somewhat smaller majority of independents in favor, and a large majority of Democrats opposed.

However, when asked if they would favor extending tax cuts only for families earning less than $250,000 a year, the response was almost exactly the same among all three groups--two-thirds of Democrats, two-thirds of independents, and two-thirds of Republican are in favor of extending the cuts only for families earning less than $250,000 a year. What poll respondents probably don't realize is that the latter question is exactly what the President and the Democrats are proposing.

Reid, Pelosi, and the Democrats could have used this fact as an opportunity to force Republicans to vote on an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy, exposing them to the ire of the American middle class, and to the hypocrisy of calling for deficit reductions while adamantly opposing the expiration of unneeded tax breaks. But it seems the Republicans' messaging campaigns, as usual, are just better executed, regardless of the lack of actual support for their policies.

Senator McConnell has the messaging down: keep blaming the Democrats for spending, spending, spending, while completely ignoring the fact that tax cuts are contributing to the deficit. Make the middle class think that the Democrats are trying to tax them more by portraying them as avid taxers, even though that is the opposite of the truth. And even as House Minority Leader Boehner conceded that "If the only option I have is to vote for some of those tax reductions, I'll vote for it," he was immediately rebuked by Senate Republicans, who seem to know that they have the edge in the messaging campaign to keep Americans confused about how these tax cuts actually work.

Images: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) (CBS News)

NRCC Takes Out a Loan Despite Republican Gripes About Spending Money You Don't Have

One of the main focal points of Republicans this midterm election season is the unbelievable burden of taxes that socialist liberals have hoisted upon the backs of hardworking Americans (their words, not mine). House Republicans have pledged to cut $100 billion from the federal budget next year should they gain control of the lower house of Congress. House Minority leader John Boehner has outlined what he would do to curb spending if Republicans gain the House majority and he is in charge.

Are the Democrats Trying to Lose in November?

I wrote last week on the Huffington Post about how the Tea Party has the potential to energize both the Republican base and the Democratic base this November. The movement is scary, not only from a xenophobic standpoint but also a policy one (or lack of policy), and the prospect of someone like Christine O'Donnell walking the halls of Congress just might be enough to get Democrats out to vote Democratic in an election cycle when, in all honesty, Democrats have not proven themselves worthy of our votes.

Republicans Not Open to Compromise on Already-Compromised Oil Bill; Bill Dies

In what can hardly be viewed as a surprise, on Tuesday the Senate gave up on its oil spill bill (at least until after the August recess). As a refresher, the Clean Energy Jobs and Oil Accountability Act of 2010 was the substitute that Harry Reid pushed through for the climate—nay, renewable energy—nay, energy bill that was supposed to have emerged from the Senate many months ago. Reid's reason for not even bothering to try? It didn't have 60 votes. The reason the oil spill went nowhere this week? It didn't have 60 votes. If I didn't know any better, I'd say Republicans are just banking on a strategy where they're trying to keep Democrats from scoring any victories for the rest of the year, and they're not going to cooperate on any more legislation.

U.S. Senate Exhibits Pivotal Failure of Democracy

I've been writing about climate change issues for a while now. I've talked about the climate science, the leadership role of the House of Representatives, the childish politics and conservative propaganda. I've talked about the strong obstructionism against action by lobbyists, Republicans, and conservative Democrats. I've talked about the climatic, humanitarian, and security implications of inaction, and the concerted move (and failure) to block any government action at all. I've talked about the awareness among Americans, the problems with the media, and the implications of the oil spill.

But now it kind of feels like it's all over. Not because the Senate followed the House's leadership and passed a piece of climate change legislation of their own. But because the Senate fundamentally failed to do anything at all.

Republicans Who Once Supported Carbon Cap Renounce Former Positions

Has there been any notable change to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change since Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Lamar Alexander (R-TN), and John McCain (R-AZ) supported an economy-wide cap on greenhouse gas emissions a few years ago? Actually, yes. The consensus has grown stronger, and the certainty of climate change's human cause has increased substantially.

Don't Call It a Comeback: Vito Fossella Gets Staten Island GOP Nod

Vito Fossella (NYMag)

Vito Fossella, the Staten Island rep who got caught drinking and driving in Virginia and then called his mistress to pick him up from the drunk tank, is back on the political scene. Last night the Staten Island Republican Party chose Fossella - over not one, but two other people - to run for his old seat against incumbent Democrat Michael McMahon. And it wasn't even close: the vote was 23-4. To top it off (as if the other two candidates were not insulted enough), SI GOP chairman John Friscia stated, "It is my firm belief that he is the strongest candidate we can field." Well, that's just sad.

The Arizona Immigration Law is Wrong on Multiple Fronts

The new law in Arizona dealing with illegal immigration has caused quite a stir in the country.  The law makes it a misdemeanor to lack the proper immigration paperwork in the state, as well as requires cops to determine a person's immigration status if they form a "reasonable suspicion" that a person is in the country illegally.  In other words, it's a carte blanche for profiling.  But even beyond the moral/racial ramifications of this misguided legislation, Arizonans (and Arizona Republicans) might soon find themselves regretting this one.

Senators Move to Block EPA From Regulating GHGs

Led by the efforts of Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), 35 Republicans and three Democrats have co-sponsored a "resolution of disapproval" of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and welfare. This endangerment finding, which authorizes the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007 (Massachusetts v. EPA).

While the Bush Administration never had any intention to seriously address climate change, the current administration has tried to use EPA's imminent regulating power as leverage to impel Congress to pass an economy-wide climate bill. Indeed, President Obama's staff have expressly stated that they didn't want to see the EPA have to use its regulatory authority; they wanted to see comprehensive legislation to address the matter in a more democratic (and likely less onerous) way. The House passed its climate bill in June; the Senate has gotten almost nowhere, as seems to be the standard nowadays.

Because the threat of EPA regulation is still at hand, and because they have no intention of compromising with Democrats (who, for whatever reason, acknowledge much more readily that climate change is a grave threat to national security, human health, economic prosperity, and environmental protection), Republicans are now leading the charge to strip EPA of its power, effectively eliminating any federal response to the global crisis. They've had over a year to come up with a legislative compromise, and several bills are on the table, but, as Murkowski said just last week:

Congress must be given time to develop an appropriate and more responsible solution.

Translation: "I don't like the Democrats' climate bill, since Alaska has a lot of fossil fuels and consumes by far the most energy per capita in the country, and even though the effects of climate change can be seen in my state better than anywhere else in the country, I'd rather put off any sort of bill to 'address' the issue until we have more Republicans in the Senate and can get more fossil fuel production provisions in a bill. Which, by the way, won't address climate change at all, and will only serve to neutralize mitigation measures."

Most Republicans, by the way, would never even consider voting for a bill with a cap-and-trade mechanism. Murkowski is (or was) one of the few, but wants lots of climate-harming measures in there as well, in a sort of 'war is peace'/'we can only go forward by moving backward' mentality.

Meanwhile, Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has joined with Murkowski in call for the disapproval. This is especially disappointing, as he has allegedly been working with Sens. Kerry and Lieberman to craft a bipartisan cap-and-trade bill over the past several months. He admitted recently that nothing is on paper yet. And now his best solution is to eliminate any potential greenhouse gas regulation (which would, as I've said, be superseded by the bill he is allegedly working on)? Even 'enlightened' Republicans seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths.

The good news: Even though the disapproval would only need 51 votes to pass, President Obama will almost assuredly veto it. The bad news: Scott Brown's election in Massachusetts has probably erased the possibility of a worthwhile Senate climate bill, both because he will vote against it (even though he voted for Massachusetts to join the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative) and because Democrats are getting the wrong message from his election ('uh-oh, people are angry at us, let's stop trying to solve serious problems').

What we know is that Obama doesn't want the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases. But he doesn't want to lose that bargaining chip either. So the question is, if (hopefully when) this disapproval resolution fails, will Republicans work with Democrats to pass a climate bill? Or will they wait it out until they have more seats in Congress, vote down the EPA's authority, and leave climate yet untouched for a few more years or decades (maybe until serious flooding starts occurring on our coasts, or our ag lobby decides that maybe climate change isn't great for their output)? I'm going to dejectedly predict the latter.

Images: Supreme Court on greenhouse gases (Slate), Sen. Murkowski (The Guardian), EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson (heatingoil.com)

Disaster in Massachusetts and a Supreme Court Decision that Disgraces Democracy

Two pieces of calamitous news in two days. Both pretty much impossible to swallow, but both realities moving forward.

The Massachusetts Senate Election

On Tuesday, Massachusetts voters elected the little-known Scott Brown to assume the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Kennedy spent decades fighting tooth and nail for health care reform, and now reform is severely threatened by Brown's impending inauguration. He has already vowed to obstruct the Democrats from passing a bill (nothing new for a Republican), and now Democrats are starting to back off any ambition they once had for making the bill strong and thorough. Massachusetts voters, who had been enamored of Ted Kennedy for decades, voted to betray his dying wish. I am not saying that the successor to his seat should have espoused his every view; I am saying that whatever values Ted Kennedy held that Massachusetts citizens ostensibly held in such high esteem for so long, they instantaneously turned their backs on.

There are innumerable factors that likely lifted Brown to victory, most of which have been discussed at length. Coakley ran an awful campaign. Voters were still disillusioned by the nation's employment and housing crises. The election was taken for granted by Democrats for too long. But whatever the reason for the shocking defeat, there are now 41 Republicans in the Senate, opening the possibility of interminable filibusters and continued obstruction until November, when Republicans will point out to Americans that Democrats have accomplished next to nothing, despite holding the Presidency and both Houses of Congress by sizable majorities.

The House climate bill can be completely scrapped. (Why do we even have a House, by the way? Sure, they're much more representative of our country than the Senate, but who needs representatives, when they don't seem to have a say in anything?) The relatively progressive House health care bill will likely give way entirely to the Senate health care bill so that at least something is passed (if there's no health care bill passed at all this year, Democrats can probably say goodbye to legislative chamber majorities come November). Who knows if there will be a jobs bill (even though that's what people are most concerned about right now). Financial regulations will pass, but likely in a weak bill that will maintain much of the status quo for the very sharks who helped push the world economy into a deep recession.

What exactly were Massachusetts voters voting for, then? Were they trying to send a message that they're mad? Because like it or not, Scott Brown will not get back at Wall Street. Scott Brown will not help create short-term jobs (his solution is to cut taxes). And by the way, when you're out of a job, Scott Brown certainly won't help you get health insurance. Oh, unless you're from Massachusetts, where progressive Democrats already passed legislation to ensure that for you. Ted Kennedy's dream, and life's work, which was so close to fruition, has been betrayed by his own loving constituents, solely because of his death. The irony is excruciating.

The U.S. Supreme Court Decision

In other horrible elections news, today the Supreme Court ruled that the government can't ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. I've talked at length about this issue before. While I have problems with the inherent idea of democracy (see: Massachusetts voters voting against their own interests and the interests of their country), I still acknowledge that it is the only form of government that reflects the ideals of human freedom, justice, and equality. It has its flaws, of course, and must be periodically improved so that these core tenets are not betrayed. Today, they were betrayed.

The four conservative ideologues on the Supreme Court and one alleged (but woefully misguided) moderate have further opened the election process to unprecedented levels of cash injections from big businesses, arguing that they are defending the first amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

Let me first say that money is not speech, and conflating those two concepts is nefariously deceptive. But we have to remember here that the Constitution has been bent, twisted, and adulterated incessantly over the past 200+ years, to behoove whomever was "interpreting" its words. In this case, conservative judges who maintain Republican allegiances and were all appointed by Republican presidents, ruled against a bipartisan law that was designed to make elections fair and unbiased, untainted by the influx of money from self-interested groups corporations.

What is democracy now? Does the prefix demo- not mean "people"? What the majority of the Court failed to acknowledge was the underlying foundation of our democratic republic: the right of the people to choose their leaders, and the right for any person to have a chance to become one of those leaders, assuming they can compel the electorate to afford them enough votes. Now corporations will hold undue influence in all federal elections, the wealthiest of them having the biggest say in which politicians will be elected (think: Walmarts who exploit employees, Exxon Mobils and Southern Companies who unabashedly contribute to climate change, Pfizers and Aetnas who exploit the sick for massive profits, and Citigroups who get away with inciting economic turmoil and run away with unfathomable bonuses).

Whatever politicians who are still around that you thought were truly serving the interests of their constituents--that average "Joe the Plummer" that Republicans just love evoking--will soon be a vestige of a previous era of American politics. Don't get me wrong: Democrats are often just as guilty as Republicans when it comes to being beholden to special interests. And elected progressive Democrats who want to reform our election system to make it fair and democratic will soon be few and far between. Unbridled capitalism has commandeered our democracy. Our election system, the basis of American idealism, is truly tarnished in an irrevocable way (unless today's atrocious ruling is one day revoked).

It's been a really bad week for America.

Images: Scott Brown (New York Times), spineless Democrats (photobucket.com), Supreme Court Justices (Zimbio.com), Guy with sign (scu.edu)

Republicans and the Senate Climate Bill

The Senate climate change bill, or “Kerry-Boxer,” as it’s called, just passed out of the Environment and Public Works Committee in the Senate—with no Republicans voting for it. In fact, no Republicans have attended the bill’s markup in the last three days; they’ve been boycotting it. Claiming that they need to wait for a more comprehensive analysis by the EPA, all seven EPW Republicans refused to show up to Committee meetings in protest of how “quickly” the bill is rushed through the committee. This is despite the fact, of course, that the House passed their climate bill in June and the Senate bill is not overwhelmingly different.

The most outspoken critic of the bill’s allegedly unfair passage through Committee, and apparently the most ardent defender of EPA analyses, was Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe. No heed should be paid to Inhofe’s childish maneuvering and mendacious quotations. He would never support any form of climate change legislation, and he would do whatever was in his power to defeat any such bill under any circumstances.

The problem is the other six Senators on the committee, two of whom could potentially be reaches as Republican supporters of climate legislation—George Voinovich (OH) and Lamar Alexander (TN). Granted, they probably wouldn’t have ended up voting for the final bill anyway, but this bill will need some moderate Republican support if it’s going to have to find 60 votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster (Inhofe would no doubt personally carry out the filibuster for months if he had to).

Now that the Democrats have passed the bill through Committee without any Republican input, moderate Republicans outside of the Committee—who may have been a much better hope for cloture votes—are criticizing Chairman Boxer’s move. Snowe and Collins (ME), Lugar (IN), Murkowski (AK), Gregg (NH), and Graham (SC), all supported the delay, and now bemoan the bill’s movement out of Committee.

Hearing Republicans talk about climate legislation, as I did yesterday when I went to a panel on which Lisa Murkowski spoke, is incredibly frustrating. Their solution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is largely focused on increased oil and gas development in the United States. There will no doubt have to be big—and detrimental—compromises made. But hopefully the most esteemed legislative institution in our country can overcome its penchant for juvenility and pass a bill that will actually address the most urgent global threat of our time.

Images: Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) (schema-root.org)

Stuck

Given my last politics post about Obama's promises seemingly not coming to fruition in the near future, I have done a lot of thinking about the state of politics for folks my age. No one needs to tell us the world has changed significantly the past few years; we just exited some of our most politically active years (college) during a time of two physical wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and one war on a buzzword (terror) during a presidential administration that rivaled Nixon in cringe inducement. We rallied behind Obama only to see political causes we cared about (closing our generation's version of wartime internment manifested in Guantanamo, securing equal rights for our gay friends and coworkers) pushed to side to focus on inevitably falling short on true healthcare reform.

We saw a very similar thing happen in the late 70s with Carter taking over a sub-par Ford administration and coming up short. That ushered in Ronald Reagan. Reagan was the 1980s Republican Obama: a change from the previous administration, well-spoken, relatable, and popular. He was so popular that even after countless scandals (Iran-Contra being one of the largest), an incredibly reckless covert war in Afghanistan that led to the rise of the Taliban and one Osama bin Laden, an unbelievable increase in government spending and expanding of government, his vice president was elected president. The effect of Reagan's presidency did not end there, though, as Bush I's pledge of "no new taxes" was sacrificed in the wake of Reagan's aforementioned government spending and Clinton pounced on it in 1992. Yet Reagan is looked back upon as the father of modern conservatism; so much so that in the 2008 Republican primary debate held at his presidential library, the candidates sat around and tried to channel the Gipper to appeal to their base.

And this is where the problem lies for Republicans. Just like the Democrats are using their playbook from the 1990s (which, lest we forget, led to an embarrassing presidential election loss in 2000 in what would today look like Reagan-Mondale, with Bush clearing brush for the next 8 years instead of taking orders from Cheney), the Republicans are living in the past. Three of the major Republican candidates last election (Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo) stated that they did not believe in evolution. How can the party evolve when some of their most well-known leaders would like to make the Scopes trial relevant again?

So this is where we are: Democrats are stuck in the 90s and Republicans are stuck in the 80s. So where does that leave the people living in the 21st century? Stuck. If we become disenchanted by Democrats (which is a road many of us are heading down), where are we going to turn? Rush Limbaugh and his polarizing rhetoric? We don't want to cry with Glenn Beck and we don't want Michael Steele acting like our "hip" uncle who thinks he's "down" with us youngsters. It's as if we're entering another Gilded Age: as weekly wages of the average American have declined, payouts on bailout-laden Wall Street will see record numbers this year. Politics seems to be at a standstill and the two-party system is as broken as our healthcare system. Obama talks a great game, but just cannot seal the deal, while the Republicans are not even trying. The Democrats still have time to turn things around, but we'll have to skip a few evolutionary steps to get there. Peace.

Photo - Still from "Stuck on You" (Reeling Reviews)

Conservatives Attack, Democrats Say Uncle

In November 2008, an already majority-Democrat Congress made further gains in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, and won the presidency as well. Now, with a relatively progressive House and a nominally "filibuster-proof" majority in the Senate, it would be logical that the legislative agenda in Washington would be tilted in favor of more progressive policies. And the White House has certainly taken some bold steps over the past eight months, including addressing issues from Guantanamo Bay to Vehicle Emissions Standards. And yet, compared to how much progress should have been made by now, it seems that conservatives have been particularly successful in stymieing a great deal of what could have been accomplished.

Since the Democrats took control of both branches, conservatives and the vast majority of the Republican party (see the breakdown of House votes on the Stimulus bill) have employed a clever strategy in Washington; namely, to obstruct everything Democrats try to do. And in large part, it's worked well. With the help of incendiary pundits pushing their agendas on the airwaves, conservatives have been able to drive their messages into the hearts of Americans, though not necessarily by explaining why their policy ideas are stronger than those of Democrats.

Instead, most "calls to arms" from the right have been predicated on somewhat or outright misleading information. Town hall meetings have been overrun by angry citizens who think the health care reform means a socialist takeover of the health care system and "death panels." Obama's speech yesterday on how kids should stay in school and work hard caused a massive controversy in the preceding weeks over whether the President was trying to "indoctrinate our youth" with "socialist ideas," and Van Jones was forced to resign from the Council for Environmental Quality because of vicious attacks on his character from right-wing pundits and Republican Congressmen.

It turns out Obama's speech on the first day of school was about taking personal responsibility and working hard (aren't those the core tenets of American conservatism?). And yet, after hearing Glenn Beck rant about Obama's socialist motives on Fox News, enraged and frightened parents demanded that their children not be subjected to such a speech. Conservatives are so effective at getting their political agenda across that they have actually been able to convince parents not to let their kids listen to speeches about the values of education and hard work by the President of the United States of America, just because he is a Democrat. Now that is impressive. And appalling.

Meanwhile, Van Jones resigned late Saturday from his position as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise, and Innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. A few weeks earlier, a non-profit that Jones had founded, Color of Change, organized an advertising boycott of Beck's Fox News show after the demagogue called Obama a "racist." In retaliation, Beck began an all-out smear campaign on Jones's character, stirring public fears of Obama's non-Senate-confirmed "czars" (somehow the idea of Russian monarchs giving Obama advice is especially terrifying). Now Jones, who is a visionary, an activist, and a true patriot, can no longer help serve his country in transitioning us to a socially equitable, clean energy economy.

All these controversies and distractions have helped to keep the President's and Democrats' agenda largely on hold. And Democrats and progressives don't seem very capable at fighting back on any of these issues. Glenn Beck, now seemingly one of the most powerful people in the US, has instilled fear in Americans, enhanced distrust in Democrats, and put them on the defensive instead of where they should be—passing key legislation. Even with big majorities in both Houses, Democrats are being out maneuvered by Republicans and conservatives at every turn, and are squandering rare and precious opportunities for changes that our country desperately needs.

Images: Obstructionist cartoon (Rockford Register Star), Glenn Beck (Grist), Van Jones (Washington Post)

Climate Bill Passes by an All-Too-Thin Margin

The U.S. House of Representatives just passed the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 by a margin of seven votes, 219 to 212. Kudos to Chairmen Waxman and Markey for taking the lead on the most crucial issue of the next several generations, the threat of global climate change. Many perceive the issue as an environmental one, and one that is only a victory for "environmentalists." But that couldn't be further from the truth.

As I have touched on many times, climate change is an all-encompassing issue that threatens a seemingly endless variety of other issues. You might personally believe that healthcare, civil liberties, war, or any number of other issues is a bigger priority than climate change, a supposedly futuristic notion predicated upon shaky science. But every issue being debated in the United States today can in some way be connected to climate change—or at least related policies.

Tom Friedman wrote in Tuesday's Times that weaning ourselves off of oil could serve to undermine oppressive oil-rich regimes in countries like Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Russia. Many countries rich from oil use their profits to invest in nuclear weapons or fund terrorism. Anyone care to do something about nukes and terrorists? Isn't that why we're in Iraq and Afghanistan (or at least Afghanistan)? Isn't that why we're so frightened of Iran?

If we don't address climate change, the healthcare issue will only be exacerbated. Airborne diseases will increase with increased temperatures, including potential epidemics for which we are ill prepared.

If we don't address climate change, refugees of floods, droughts, and desertified lands will try to flee to other countries to rebuild their lives, and as we see all over Africa and Asia, an increase in ethnically diverse populations in economically depressed regions competing for the same jobs and resources tends to lead to intrastate conflict that can easily spread across borders. Want to help prevent war? Help prevent climate change.

Even the agricultural community in the United States, who lobbied hard enough to essentially fend off any potential regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the agricultural sector, would be drastically affected by even a minor change in temperature and climate conditions. But the major problem here is that no one thinks in the long term.

And that is exactly why Republicans, only eight of whom voted for the legislation today, are able to exploit it for political gains. 'It only amounts to a tax,' they say. 'It will only hurt American business and force consumers to pay more for their heat, power, and gasoline.' For them, it's not about preventing disaster across the world. It's about winning back a Republican majority in the United States Congress by exploiting myopic concerns. But climate change is not just an environmental issue, and it's sure not a partisan issue. It has somehow devolved into both over the course of the debate on regulation, and will inevitably cause forward-thinking politicians to lose their seats. This is the unfortunate reality in a democracy like ours of standing up for what is right, even if it may not be exceptionally popular in the short run.

So the Waxman-Markey bill, even though it was watered down excessively to cater to wealthy businesses and utilities and power-wielding lobbyists, has finally passed. No one knows if it will accomplish anything near what scientists say we need to. But at least it's a start. And now the issue will move on to the Senate, where it will be diluted even more, and progress will only be hindered further. In 40 years, we'll all look back at this and wonder how we could have been so ignorant. Those who opposed the bill are on the wrong side of history, just as the anti-civil rights folks were in the '50s and '60s. But in the realm of climate change, by the time that fact is universally accepted, it could very well be too late.

Images: Climate rally outside Capitol (Wall Street Journal), Ahmadinejad in front of oil refinery (New York Times), Republican opponents to ACES (TreeHugger)

Specter’s Big Switch

Today, Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter announced that he is abandoning the Republican Party and becoming a Democrat. It seems that in the aftermath, Democrats are elated and Republicans are forlorn. But on a practical level, the shift doesn’t change as much as it may seem to.

The foremost “hurray” argument is that now the Democrats, with Lieberman and Sanders, have 59 votes in the Senate, one shy of the three-fifths needed to break a Republican filibuster. And lo and behold, Al Franken is on his way (sometime after June 1…or more likely much later) to becoming the 60th Senate Democrat. But let’s consider the reality of the situation.

Ted Kennedy is sadly not in good health, and hasn’t shown up for many votes recently. He might be able to muster the strength to appear in Washington for a key healthcare cloture vote here or there, but odds are he won’t be around very much. That knocks the number of Democrats back down to 59 (as long as we’re counting Franken). A Snowe or Collins vote would push the Democrats over the marker, but that was a vote that could have been provided by Republican Specter anyway.

More importantly, Specter has been a Republican since 1966, albeit a moderate one. He has been willing to defy his party in many circumstances over the past 40 years, and there’s no reason he would suddenly agree with Democrats on all the issues now that he’s one of them. I predict that his voting record will not change much from what it has been. Granted, he might vote with the Democrats more often than he used to in order to gain some favor within the party, but on the big issues, the veteran Senator most likely won’t budge very much.

After all, Pennsylvanians on average are fairly moderate. He’s not switching parties in order to attract the progressive Pennsylvania base. He’s switching parties to avoid likely defeat at the hands of extreme conservative Pat Toomey, who recently polled ahead of Specter in the Senate primary by 21 percent. As Pennsylvania demographics have shifted toward the Democratic Party in recent years, the Republican Party there has accordingly become more conservative (as it has lost many moderates to the other side of the aisle). Because the Democrats don’t have an Ed Rendell or other widely popular candidate in the race, Specter will likely win the Democratic primary and cruise on to reelection.

For progressive Democrats, this is probably a bad thing. Had Specter remained a Republican, Toomey would probably have defeated him in the primary, then lost the general to the Democratic nominee, who would likely have been more liberal than Specter, who is now by far the most conservative Democrat in the Senate (we’ll see how he compares to Ben Nelson (D-NE) once he starts voting as a Democrat).

So for the next year and a half, Democrats might win some battles that they may otherwise not have won. But come 2011, there will still be a conservative Pennsylvania Democrat in the Senate, as opposed to a more progressive one. With the moderate Democrats wielding a great deal of power these days, it’s going to be hard for the progressives in the Senate to pass sweeping progressive legislation without winning some more seats (even wresting them from their own party members) in 2010.

Photos: Arlen Specter (New York Times), Pat Toomey (Huffington Post)