Intrepid Liberal Journal

Sunday Summer Musings

2009-07-05T14:31:00.003-04:00

As regular readers of this blog have noted to me via email, I have posted infrequently in recent weeks. Although I’ve conducted podcast interviews with interesting subjects and have more scheduled over the summer, personal matters have required my attention. Hence, I haven’t been able to comment on recent events. Some of you have emailed asking if I’m doing OK. Rest assured, I am fine and this has only been a temporary respite from blogging. Like many of you, I have been following current events both nationally and internationally as well as locally in my home state. A few observations and thoughts below:

Curiously, the lack of coherent conservative political opposition is undermining the progressive cause and reinforcing the Washington/Wall Street axis. President Obama and much of the Democratic Party appears content to remain risk averse, hoard political capital as “Blue Dog” Democrats such as Evan Bayh and Max Caucus continue to be whores for the private insurance industry and the moneyed interests. With the Republican Party in disarray, the Obama administration has no incentive to go beyond the political fifty-yard line and transform America from a corporate national security state to a society that facilitates broad based prosperity for real entrepreneurs and wage earners. Meanwhile, the corporate press falsely portrays the national debate as between the “liberal” Obama administration and “mainstream” critics. Sadly, and it pains me to write this, enablers of America’s modern gilded age have merely hit the “reset button” with the Obama administration. I like Al Franken and I’m happy he will finally take his rightful place as Minnesota’s junior senator. But that magical sixtieth vote will not transform the landscape all that much. As Illinois Senator Dick Durbin candidly put it earlier this year, the banks “frankly own the place.”

In my opinion, Bernie Madoff is a scapegoat for the crimes on Wall Street. Madoff will spend the rest of his days in prison and deservedly so. I have no sympathy for him. However, the looters at Goldman Sachs, Citicorp and A.I.G. are just as guilty if not more so than Madoff. Yet they’re benefiting from billions of dollars subsidized by taxpayers as state and municipal governments barely hang on. It seems to me that Madoff as the public face of Wall Street’s crimes is enabling plutocrats in Washington and the financial services industry to avoid accountability and needed restructuring of our economy. Two decades ago, Michael Milken became the public face of Wall Street’s excess and nothing changed. If Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the administration’s senior economic advisor, Timothy Geithner have their way, the Wall Street/Washington axis will continue to conduct business as usual. Their so-called “reforms” are cosmetic only and will not facilitate the systemic change our economy so desperately needs.

Enablers of the Washington/Wall Street axis are the cozy relationship between “journalists” and the lobbyists of corporate America. The recent news about the Washington Post selling access to corporate lobbyists simply reinforces what the American people have sensed in their guts for a long time: the “truth” is purchased, packaged and sold. Americans across the political spectrum know this intuitively and that as much as anything explains the decline of traditional media in the Internet age. To some degree this is regrettable because nobody exposed local corruption better than those old time city newspapers with reporters mining sources among the worker bees at city hall. Also, the Internet and blogs are hardly a panacea of journalism. Regardless, the Washington/Wall Street access can only be broken from outside and that means we the people have to become our own journalists.

It seems that the real conflict in Iran is between their security forces and factions among the clerics. The valiant protesters are really pawns for the real power struggle-taking place. Even so, hopefully the people who bravely stood up and risked their lives represent a window into the future. Presently though, Iran appears poised to become more of a traditional military dictatorship and less of a theocracy. How events in Iran will transform the Middle East is hard to say but there does appear to be a thaw in American/Syrian relations. The State Department has hoped to exploit potential rifts between Iran and Syria for years even as the Bush administration behaved like a bull in a China shop and the fallout from Iran's presidential election has given the West at least a modest diplomatic opening.

I’m gratified American troops are finally withdrawing from Iraq and that Vice President Biden has advised the Iraqis we won’t be expending more blood and treasure to police sectarian violence. Sadly, those resources will likely be redeployed in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater. Unless vigorous diplomacy with NATO powers or the upcoming summit in Russia can facilitate greater logistical support, an overextended American military is more vulnerable than ever to the burdens of empire maintenance in the name of national defense.

I can’t begin to articulate my disgust over events in Albany with the state senate. Much of my activism last year was dedicated to enabling Democrats to finally take the majority. Painfully, their political incompetence as well as Governor David Paterson’s feckless leadership has effectively ended those reformist aspirations from 2006 when Eliot Spitzer was elected New York’s chief executive. With respect to who controls the state senate there is the 2010 census at stake and that means repercussions for the House of Representatives as well the power dynamic in Albany. For the people of this state it’s not just about reform or which party controls Albany. It’s being able to earn a living wage, afford healthcare, have access to affordable housing and good public schools. Unfortunately, New York's political leadership has shown that the Big Apple is a Banana Republic. Hopefully, the chaos between Democrats and Republicans will strengthen the leverage of New York’s Workers Family Party as they represent the interests of New York’s struggling wage earners. Now more than ever Democrats need the support of the WFP and they have much work to do to earn it. As for Eliot Spitzer, tempermentally flawed as he is, I would gladly take him back and would even be willing to pay an "escort tax" to make it happen!

Living On $2 A Day: An Interview With Economist Jonathan Morduch

2009-06-21T15:19:00.007-04:00

According to the World Bank, almost forty percent of humanity lives on a daily income of less than two dollars per day. Another 1.1 billion scrape by on less than one dollar per day.

How can anyone possibly survive or raise a family with such a meager income? In New York City, two dollars per day won’t even cover my daily Brooklyn/Manhattan round-trip subway commute. Yet billions of low skilled people put food on the table, educate their children, grapple with unexpected emergencies and even save money.

In Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live On $2 a Day, Darryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven, compiled yearlong “financial diaries,” of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India and South Africa. The diaries track penny by penny, how specific households manage their money with sophistication and resourcefulness. Recently published by Princeton University Press, Portfolios of the Poor, presents revealing data in an accessible seven chapters and 184 pages of text. The text is supported with an additional eighty plus pages of appendices, data tables and notes illustrating “the story behind the portfolios.”

In a tour de force of primary research, the authors report that the world’s poorest do not live hand to mouth and desperately spend what they earn just to keep from drowning. Instead, they utilize financial tools, rely on “informal” networks through relatives and neighbors and navigate perils such as medical calamities and political strife. Their stories are both inspiring as well as heartbreaking.

Although the world’s poorest are far more adept at financial management then previously understood, they’re confronted with what the authors describe as the “triple whammy”:

Low income
Irregularity of income.
Unpredictability about when they will earn income.

Hence, the authors assertively advocate for microfinancing as a means of empowering the world’s poorest with more secure and convenient instruments to access and manage money. Microfinancing is financial services for low income clients in the world’s poorest countries who are self-employed or operating their own businesses.

The authors argue in their book that microfinancing should also be extended to address the needs of exceptionally low-income wage earners as well. It is their contention that poor people in the countries they researched demonstrate on a daily basis that they are responsible money managers and would also be reliable clients of microfinancing services.

One of the authors, Jonathan Morduch, is a New York University ("NYU") professor of economics as well as a managing director of the Financial Access Initiative - a consortium of researchers at NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action. Morduch, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about the book and our conversation was just under twenty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered was how his team earned the confidence of the people interviewed, the informal market tools utilized by the world’s poorest in Bangladesh, India and South Africa and why he’s a proponent of extending microfinancing to the world’s poorest wage earners.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.

That Freedom Thing

2009-06-14T21:38:00.005-04:00

Years. 1956. 1968. 1979. 1989. 1990. 1997. As events and protests unfold following the disputed Iranian presidential election I’m reminded of years and moments when the forces of totalitarianism and popular will stared each other down. Each moment contained its own unique historical tapestry and illustrated humanity’s common aspirations to live in dignity.

With each instance there is wonderment and hope that history will turn the page for the better. History teaches however that such hopes are typically elusive.

Hungary: October/November 1956 - America falsely suggests it would support an uprising against Soviet oppression and backs away. The Kremlin initially appeared ready to accept Hungary’s popular will and instead opted to crush it. And a generation of freedom is lost.

Czechoslovakia: January to August 1968 - In January, reformist Slovak Alexander Dubcek comes to power and unleashes the “Prague Spring.” Citizens are granted more freedom as the economy is partially decentralized and restrictions on speech and the media are loosened. In April, Dubcek refers to his political program as “socialism with a human face.” On August 21st, the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact invade Czechoslovakia and Dubcek’s reforms are terminated. It became known as the “Brezhnev Doctrine,” as Moscow claimed the right to intervene any time a socialist country appeared ready to lose its way and embrace capitalism.

China: April/May 1989 - Twenty years ago the death of a pro-market, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, sparks an uprising. A million people gathered at Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu. The movement lasts seven weeks, from Hu's death in mid April until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on June 4th. It’s a young people’s movement, as one unarmed man is shown in footage worldwide obstructing a tank with his defiance. Many are killed, wounded and “rehabilitated” following these events as Beijing cracks down.

The end result is an uneasy truce in which China’s economy is liberalized while the Communist Party maintains its hold onto power. Whenever corruption or popular discontentment is poised to rupture the truce, Beijing exploits the nationalist card with respect to Taiwan’s sovereignty or uses America and the West as a foil legitimizing their rule. Today, China finances America’s deficit with their expanding economy even as discontentment and the Internet threaten to undermine the regime’s authority.

Eastern Europe: 1989-1990 - The proudest feeling I ever had about my country took place in March 1990. While studying abroad in England I visited Berlin and Poland. “Velvet Revolutions” had swept Eastern Europe in 1989 and Poland was the first domino to fall that summer as our bipolar world disintegrated. Even so, I was initially more enthusiastic about visiting Berlin. By March 1990 Poland wasn’t really in the news anymore following more dramatic events in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Nonetheless, the exhilarating feel of history was intoxicating.

It seemed everyone I met in Poland, from the host family I stayed with, to the courageous Solidarity activists, referred to America as their model and inspiration. Shipyard workers and university students my age peppered me with questions about our model of government laws, society and material wealth. I had to convince several Poles that the Miami Vice television program was not representative of America as a whole. How strange to watch Miami Vice on Polish television with my host family as a single male voice overdubbed all the characters!

One crusty fifty something activist told me that, “Your Constitution was stronger than Moscow’s tanks.” Lump in your throat stuff from someone who had confronted totalitarianism since I was in elementary school when the Gdansk shipyard workers rose up in 1981. Even so, the challenges ahead for Poland and Eastern Europe seemed nearly impossible to overcome.

The legacy of Soviet style industrialization was making the mucus come out of my nose black while I toured the country. There were more consumer goods available than before but insufficient resources to meet the demand. I left Poland feeling inspired by their courage but skeptical that the transition could be pulled off. I also worried that the forces of nationalism would reemerge in Eastern Europe following the collapse of communism.

The transition to market oriented democracies has been rough at times for Eastern Europe. Alas, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in genocide and bloodshed. Czechoslovakia is no longer a single country and the specter of the Russian Bear is worrisome once again. There was the tumultuous Ukrainian presidential election and Orange Revolution in 2004-05 in opposition to Russia’s imperious manipulations. Nonetheless, democracy appears to have largely taken hold but with the same challenges of transparency, corruption and economic fairness confronting all nations

South Africa: 1990 to 1994 - In 1990 South Africa's President, F.W. de Klerk initiated the systematic dismantling of the racist Apartheid regime. Nelson Mandela, formerly imprisoned by the Apartheid government prevailed in South Africa's first democratic election in 1994. With respect to facilitating reconciliation between the newly empowered black majority and the deposed white minority, Mandela's leadership is a model of statesmanship. Unfortunately, after fifteen years of corruption and incompetence, millions of black South Africans live in poverty as the AIDS pandemic plagues their country.

Iran: 1979, 1997 and 2009 - And that brings us back to Iran. Most readers here should be familiar with the history. A brief snapshot however. In 1953 an American and British orchestrated a coup that replaced Iran’s parliamentary democracy with a monarchy led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. America’s CIA trained his secret police known as SAVAK to preserve the Shah’s power. Hence, for over twenty-five years the West had a staunch ally in the oil rich Persian Gulf during the Cold War. Popular discontent however facilitated the demise of the Shah’s regime and he is forced to leave the country in January 1979.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, formerly exiled by the Shah returns in February and ultimately becomes Iran’s Supreme Leader. The brutality of the Shah’s regime is replaced with an even more oppressive Islamic theocracy. Khomeni’s consolidation of power is especially brutal. In November 1979, Iranian students seize the American Embassy and take hostages resulting in thirty years of estrangement between the former allies. A catastrophic eight year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s leaves Iran with a disproportionately youthful demographic.

President Mohammad Khatami's 1997 landslide victory generates hope among Iran's young for a new era. Many are hoping Khatami will be Iran’s Gorbachev resulting in a rapprochement with the West. Khatami and his supporters are unable to overcome the conservative forces arrayed against them. President George W. Bush further undercuts Iranian reformers with his reactionary policies following 9/11. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prevails in 2005 under the banner of economic populism and social conservatism. He becomes an object of ridicule within his own country and an international embarrassment as he denies the Holocaust and openly threatens Israel’s destruction.

Nobody with any horse sense believes Ahmadinejad legitimately defeated his reformist rival, Mir Husein Moussavi in a landslide. Today, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave his support to the outcome of the country's presidential election. Clashes are currently taking place however between the police and Moussavi’s supporters.

Obama’s diplomatic initiatives with Iran appear stalled until events shake out. Iran’s sham of a democracy has been exposed as illegitimate. We always knew that Iran’s elections were severely flawed as presidential candidates had to pass an ideological purity test to be permitted to compete. Initially, Moussavi appeared to be a clever tactic for dissenting impulses to have a means of acting out without threatening the regime’s hold on power.

Instead, a genie has been unleashed and the only way to put it back in its bottle is with brute force. Use of such force as China did in 1989 will only further alienate the population from the regime and isolate Iran even more from the world.

Obama is playing it cool at present and watching events unfold. In fairness to President Obama, America’s track record in intervening in Iranian affairs is not good. Our coup in 1953 was both immoral and strategically disastrous. Also, Obama’s foreign policy, for all the pretty rhetoric is reminiscent of George Herbert Walker Bush’s. It’s predicated on “stability” rather than encouraging grass roots movements against oppression.

And it’s hard to conduct business with a country when an uprising is taking place. So, it is understandable that the president is risk adverse. America erred in 1956 with Hungary and many died when we were not willing to intervene on their behalf. America at present is fighting two wars and doesn’t possess the assets to intervene in a meaningful way. Suggesting otherwise would be irresponsible and might even undermine opponents of the regime. If he acts rashly the end results could be disastrous. Yet, if Obama remains a passive actor, an opportunity could be missed.

Obama’s recent speech in Cairo is partially a catalyst to events on Iranian streets today. With an American president professing respect and conciliation towards the Islamic world, the rationale for Ahmadinejad as well as maintaining a bellicose posture against the West no longer seemed necessary. The recent election in Lebanon also suggested a response to Obama’s speech. Meanwhile, a viable constituency for ending Iran’s isolation certainly exits as illustrated by the 2009 campaign. Hence, Iran’s governing elite is obviously spooked by Obama’s speech, the Lebanese election and the increasing street activity of Moussavi’s supporters.

How will history turn? Is this a revolution in the making or will Iran’s mullahs successfully crack down as the Chinese communists did in 1989? China’s economy was large enough to survive the world’s condemnation but could Iran absorb the repercussions of a brutal crackdown? Or will Iran’s ruling elite come up with face saving pragmatic compromises to ensure their power for another generation? Sadly, a "Velvet Revolution" like we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with limited bloodshed seems unlikely.

Perhaps, Iran’s ruling establishment will manufacture a crisis with the United States to rally nationalist support on its behalf. Does Israel’s Netanyahu benefit from Ahmadinejad’s victory or will a popular uprising in Iran end Israel’s ability to distract from their oppression of the Palestinian people?

The possibilities, opportunities and dangers are endless. And the stakes couldn’t be higher. One thing is for sure: far better to have Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House instead of the irrational John McCain and insipid Sarah Palin. I don't always agree with Obama's centrist like approach but at least he has a cool head.

Billy Graham & the Rise of the Republican South: An Interview With Historian Steven P. Miller

2009-06-07T15:47:00.003-04:00

In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn’t so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America’s conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base.

Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham.

Historian, Steven P. Miller, first explored Billy Graham’s role in this realignment with his doctorate thesis entitled, “The Politics of Decency: Billy Graham, Evangelicalism, and the End of the Solid South, 1950-1980.” Miller later converted that thesis into his current book, Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Miller’s book delineates how Graham allowed his iconic celebrity to be used by national politicians so they could make inroads into the South. His book also details how Graham capitalized on his leverage as a regional heavyweight to influence presidents and policy.

With President Dwight Eisenhower, Graham had an ideological soul mate as both valued “moderation” between segregationists and those who championed integration. Graham believed that racism could not be overcome through legislation and the heavy hand of federal power. Instead, he advocated changing the hearts and minds of people “one soul at a time” through his integrated “crusades” where he preached his love thy neighbor gospel.

Under the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, Graham straddled the fence between promoting racial tolerance and preserving local southern autonomy or “states rights.” In that regard, Graham was an intimate part of Richard Nixon's inner circle after he became president in 1968. Graham’s defenders argue that he helped the South transition from its shameful past while preserving stability. His critics claim that Graham was a cowardly apologist for white privilege who didn’t do nearly enough to advance the cause of civil rights. Personally, like many liberals, I'm partial to the latter argument.

Ross Douthat writes in his April 19th review of Miller's book in the New York Times that,

“Neither story is the whole truth, but both are true. And it’s a credit to Steven P. Miller that his ‘Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,’ a study of the evangelist’s relationship to the cause of civil rights on the one hand and the cause of conservatism on the other, does justice to the tensions and complexities involved — for Graham, for the South and for the country. In Miller’s account, one of 20th-century America’s most important religious leaders emerges as a representative political actor as well, whose example is worth pondering less because he was courageous than because he often wasn’t.

The story of the civil rights era is usually told as a collision between heroes and villains: the marchers on one side and the K.K.K. on the other; the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon Johnsons making the way straight for justice, and the George Wallaces and Bull Connors standing sneering in their way. But the movement’s successes and failures were ultimately determined by the choices of more unheroic men — men like Billy Graham.”

Miller, who earned a PH.D degree in history from Vanderbilt University and has taught at numerous institutions, including Washington University, Webster University and Goshen College, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and our conversation was just under thirty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered is the difference between hard core fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Graham’s role in facilitating Republican inroads into the previously reliable Democratic South, whether his middle ground on civil rights was courageous or cowardly, Graham's alliance with Eisenhower, his friendship with Lyndon Johnson, the intimate collaboration with Richard Nixon and the legacy he left behind.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/060709_Interview_With_Steven_P_Miller.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be at accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Obama & the Mideast

2009-06-03T07:38:00.002-04:00

President Obama is beginning his much-anticipated Mideast trip today in Saudi Arabia that includes a heavily promoted address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt tomorrow. This trip coincides with President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, making news criticizing Israel's settlment policy in the occuppied territories. With respect to the criticism, Israel's settlement policy is both illegal and immoral.

Obama's willingness to criticize Israel for it is certainly a change in rhetoric from standard American practice in recent years. The real test however will come as the Netenyahu government continues to defy the world and build within existing settlements. Will there be any consequences? I doubt it.

At this point there is no organized counterweight to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee ("APAC"). As a Jewish American who cares about Israel, I once again express my regret that an effective counterweight to APAC does not exist. Without one, Israel will continue down a dark and perilious path and eventually reap a catastrophic whirlwind. In the meantime, blood is being shed.

I suspect Obama's Israeli criticism is partly calculated to enhance his credibility prior to engaging the leadership of the Muslim world. Translation: "I'm being honest with Israel and not coddling them. So I'm going to be honest with you too and say, Israel has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed." That won't be enough.

In fairness to Obama, I don't see how any president can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Netanyahu, even if he wanted too, can't deliver diplomatic breakthroughs without fracturing his fragile coalition or provoking civil war with Israeli settlers. The Palestinian leadership under Abbas is even less capable of coming through with what is known in the world of diplomacy as "deliverables." With Hamas shut out, the Palestinian Authority has no credibility with its own people as it struggles to survive.

Both Israeli and Palestinian societies are dysfunctional. After forty years of a brutal occupation, the Palestinians don't have the institutions or an established civil culture to govern itself as a peaceful neighbor. That won't change unless Palestinian society can have a transition period without the heavy yoke of occupation. The Palestinian young have known nothing but struggle, hardship and violence. They are jaded and easy prey to do the terrorist bidding of demagogues.

Meanwhile, Israeli society has been morally corrupted as an occupier and the extremist settler movement further ties their government’s hands. Even worse, there is no effective political left in Israel serving as an opposition. The onetime proud Labor Party is serving in Netanyahu's coalition and the opposition Kadima Party is not much better than Netanyahu's Likud government. Curiously, the Israeli press is far more critical of the occupation than the American press. Nonetheless, no viable center-left opposition party capable of challenging Israel’s posture towards the Palestinians exists.

It's heartbreaking but the cycle of violence appears unbreakable.

Dr. Tiller's Assasination Is An Act of Terrorism

2009-06-01T07:30:00.003-04:00

All I have to say about Dr. George Tiller's assassination yesterday is that it is an act of terrorism. This man put himself at risk on behalf of women and was murdered because of it. The ultimate objective is to intimidate other doctors from helping women at a time of crisis in their lives. Anyone who has ever known a woman who aborted a baby learned it is not a frivolous decision on their part. Late term abortions are especially traumatic for women and typically done to save their lives.

I've always respected people of conscious who genuinely believe abortion is wrong and have worked within the political system to oppose it. Regrettably, too many anti-abortion activists believe their moral imperative extends to murder. American conservatives have enabled the sort of terrorists that murdered Dr. Tiller and his family is living with the consequences.

Sotomayor, White Grievance Politics & the Supreme Court

2009-05-31T16:08:00.006-04:00

Two of America’s leading sexist bigots, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, recently cited a 2001 speech delivered by federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor as proof of her racism. As a liberal partisan, my instinctive reaction is disgust at their cynical attempt to exploit white identity grievance politics against the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. Conservatives have been singing the same tune since Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign in 1968 with enormous destructive impact upon American civic life.

Nonetheless, Sotomayor’s words and conservative critics reaction to her nomination, is instructive about our race/gender biases as well as the false ideal of objectivity in a Supreme Court justice. By now, many of us have read the following passage from Sotomayor’s 2001 speech to the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

First, let’s address the argument between Sotomayor and those who believe that competent judges should reach the same conclusions regardless of their backgrounds, while Sotomayor acknowledges the impact of life experience upon her decisions. It happens there is truth in both arguments.

For example, it might surprise many Americans to learn that the Supreme Court with judges as ideologically different as Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could ever reach a unanimous decision. Yet, it’s not unprecedented for the Supreme Court to announce numerous unanimous decisions early in its term. Indeed, on January 27th of this year, the Supreme Court announced five unanimous decisions with respect to civil rights laws protecting workers against employer retaliation. The rights of workers and employers are often wedges between liberals and conservatives, yet Scalia and Ginsburg voted the same way on five such cases earlier this year.

However, Sotomayor is also correct. As legal scholar and former Supreme Court clerk Christopher Eisgruber, persuasively argues, the Constitution contains too many abstract and vague references such as the Equal Opportunity Clause, for nine individuals to interpret the law without any ideological predisposition. Typically, as Eisgruber pointed out to me in a podcast interview two weeks ago, precedent and text regardless of their judicial philosophies restrain lower court jurists. Even the famous case involving fire fighters in New Haven, Connecticut that have conservative critics frothing at the mouth against Sotomayor was a ruling largely based upon precedent and two of her colleagues voted the same way.

Yet as Eisgruber also noted in our interview, historically, liberals and conservative jurists alike are eventually compelled to be “activists” and intervene through judicial review whenever a clause in the Constitution is simply too vague to provide sufficient guidance. As someone who clerked for conservative U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham and liberal Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, Eisgruber knows whereof he speaks.

Most of the time, an appeals court judge can be an “umpire” as Chief Justice John Roberts famously put it during his 2005 confirmation hearings. Much of the time, Supreme Court justices are impartial actors and personalities as different as Ginsburg and Scalia often rule the same way. Sotomayor’s background suggests that when the law and Constitution are clear, she will likely be representative of that tradition.

Nonetheless, history also suggests that the next Supreme Court justice will be confronted with cases during their tenure that transcend the text drafted by America’s founders two centuries ago or feel compelled to overturn the will of congress. For example, future Supreme Courts may preside over cases with respect to civil liberties and the technology of functional magnetic resonance imaging (brain mapping) in which neither the Constitution nor legal precedent are applicable. It also seems inevitable the Supreme Court will eventually preside over a case that transcends the will of state legislatures or congress with respect to gay marriage to ensure equal protection for all citizens.

And that leads to the Sotomayor phrase about "a wise Latina woman” that has some conservatives behaving as if their sphincter muscles are on fire. I largely agree with Sotomayor’s 2001 speech. Even so, I believe her words about “a wise Latina woman” were ill chosen. Nonetheless, this latest conservative “outrage” is a mere distraction taken out of context. Conservatives are longtime practitioners of America’s fear industrial complex and the Sotomayor nomination is merely the latest example.

When it’s one of their presidents they want justices with a reliable predisposition towards conservative activism. If a Democrat is in the White House conservatives emphasize restrained moderation. In fairness, liberal activists also emphasize moderation whenever confronted with nominees such as Roberts and Alito but gear up for a fight to advance our cause when we have a Democratic president. Such is the game of politics and elections do have consequences.

Race/gender absolutely influences our worldview and can’t help but have an impact on a Supreme Court justice. Denying that is disingenuous and we shouldn’t. Nor should we fear it. Rather, a diversity of perspectives on our nation's highest court represents America at its best. Presently, this is an uncomfortable reality for many conservatives who don’t want to relinquish the benefits of “white privilege” and feel insecure about a black Democratic president nominating a female Hispanic judge. Unless of course that justice is pliable to their worldview as Clarence Thomas has been.

It happens that I have a measure of empathy for their discomfort. My formative years were in Rockland County, New York and it was largely white bread cookie cutter suburbia when I was a kid. Although I live in Brooklyn, New York, today, I occasionally feel nostalgic about that provincial homogenous existence of my youth. I love the diversity of my adult neighborhood but even a liberal like myself is not above such sentiments.

Nonetheless, white male hegemony domination of the Supreme Court is an anachronism best discarded. Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is a reflection of our society's maturation and represents progress. As for conservatives and their childish grievances, I say spare the rod and spoil the child.

Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

2009-05-18T21:34:00.003-04:00

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don’t rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush’s presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled “Of Black Holes and Radio Silence,” Ms. de la Vega wrote:

“There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order.”

However, she also argues that,

“First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry.”

Please note that Ms. de la Vega’s post was written prior to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat.

Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists. As she wrote on April 20th:

“What we continue to need, in sum, are unwavering spotlights, even more civic education, and, most importantly, an irrefutable and cohesive factual narrative - comprised of direct and circumstantial evidence - that links the highest-level officials and advisers of the Bush administration, ineluctably, to specific instances and victims of torture. What we will surely have, however, if a special prosecutor is named, will be precisely the opposite: The initiation of a federal grand jury investigation right now would be roughly the equivalent of ceremoniously dumping the entire issue of torture into a black hole. There will be nothing to see and we will be listening intently to radio silence, trying to make sense of intermittent static in the form of the occasional unreliable leak. For years. There may never be any charges and we will almost certainly never have the unimpeachable historical narrative that we need.”

On May 10th, she posted a followed up piece entitled “Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really running Out?”and argued that the statutory clock in section 2340A, otherwise known as the “torture statute” didn’t start ticking until Bush’s presidency ended on January 20, 2009 – when President Obama reversed our policies. Her May 10th post was in response to those who are clamoring for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor because they claim the statute of limitations for torture crimes that began in 2002 were scheduled to expire in 2010.

Ms. de la Vega’s position stems from her longtime experience as a federal prosecutor. She served as a Justice Department Attorney under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. She is the winner of numerous Attorney General's and community awards, including the prestigious Director's Award for Superior Performance. For over twenty-years, Ms. de la Vega targeted violent gangsters and sophisticated white-collar criminals in Minneapolis where she served as an Assisted United States Attorney and San Jose, where she was Branch Chief and a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force.

Since retiring from government service in 2004, Ms. de la Vega has been among the most vocal in pushing for accountability on a broad range of crimes allegedly committed during the Bush administration. In 2006, her book, the United States vs. George W. Bush, et al was a New York Times best seller. A year ago, Ms. de la Vega wrote an incisive piece supporting Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush.

She has also contributed to numerous print and online publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Nation magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, TomDispatch, Truthout and Alternet.

Ms. de la Vega agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about her views with respect to investigating torture and support for public transparency. Special thanks to Vern Radul, known in the blogosphere as Edger where he manages Antemedius.com for persuading Ms. de la Vega for doing the interview. Our conversation was just under twenty-minutes as I posed numerous devil’s advocate questions. Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either “Robert Ellman” or the “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

The Next Justice: An Interview With Legal Scholar Christopher L. Eisgruber

2009-05-17T20:53:00.004-04:00

President Obama will soon announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It’s a critical nomination with long-term ramifications for civil liberties, executive power, management-labor relations, the environment and consumer rights. Hence, it is vital the public know whether the judicial philosophy and ideology of any prospective nominee to the court is compatible with their sensibilities and values. Ideally, all nominees would be forthcoming about their philosophy as the senate either confirms or rejects them with full knowledge of the sort of justice they’re likely to be.

Regrettably, that hasn’t occurred since the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings for Robert Bork. At the time, Bork scared the hell out of me and I’m grateful his nomination was not approved. Even so, I always respected how Bork was upfront about his ideology and judicial philosophy. Bork didn’t hide what he was and the American public and the Senate had a clear picture of what sort of justice he would be.

Sadly, since the Bork nomination fight, our Supreme Court appointments process has become a Kabuki dance existing in an alternate reality. Nominees are conditioned to reveal as little as possible about their judicial philosophies or even avoid acknowledging they have one. A pitiful example is Chief Justice John Roberts who famously compared Supreme Court justices with baseball umpires during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings:

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Contrary to John Roberts’ testimony, a Supreme Court justice has a unique and expansive role in our society. The Constitution contains too many abstract references and clauses for any justice to merely adhere to the rules based on a strict interpretation of the text. An example is the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. As the highly regarded legal scholar, Christopher L. Eisgruber, observes in his 2007 book, The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press) the Equal Protection Clause reads,

“’No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

How should judges interpret this clause? Presumably, they must ask what it means for the laws to protect people equally. Yet that question takes judges straight to the nerve center of American ideological controversy. Liberals and conservatives disagree passionately about what it means for the laws to protect groups equally and about when it is appropriate for the laws to treat one group better than another.”

Overall, Eisgruber argues that due to the Constitution’s many vague abstractions, a Supreme Court justice is disproportionately influenced by their individual values and ideology in determining when it’s appropriate for the court to intervene and even overrule our country’s prior laws. How could it be otherwise when the Constitution’s text is frequently subject to broad interpretation as with the Equal Opportunity Clause? Hence, it is imperative the senate determines if the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee is representative of the country.

Some legal scholars such as Yale law professor Stephen Carter have argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should simply stay home because their testimony has ceased to contribute anything substantive. There is definitely merit to Carter’s point of view. Nominees since Robert Bork typically speak only in vague platitudes about practicing “judicial restraint” and are ultimately voted up or down based upon their reassuring television appeal.

Eisgruber however argues in his book that the senate should ask more open-ended questions of prospective nominees about their judicial philosophies. Too often senators attempt to trap nominees with “gotcha” questions or ask about specific issues such as abortion that that can easily be deflected to “preserve their integrity” prior to joining the Supreme Court. Ultimately, little is learned and unless opposition interest groups get any traction or a scandal emerges, the nominee is likely to sail through without defending or explaining their ideology.

One example of the sort of question Eisgruber suggests asking is,

“The late Chief Justice William Rehinquist wrote that ‘manifold provisions of the Constitution with which judges must deal are by no means crystal clear in their import, and reasonable minds may differ as to which interpretation is proper.’ Could you tell us something about the values and purposes that will guide you when you interpret provisions like the Equal Protection Clause? How do those values and purposes distinguish your approach from those taken by other justices?”

Eisgruber contends this approach has a better chance of determining the sort of justice a nominee is likely to be. He also argues that it will facilitate more moderate nominees and discourage stealth extremists.

Eisgruber, who previously clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham (a conservative) and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (a liberal), agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book. Among the topics discussed were the insights he gained clerking for two ideologically different judges, the importance of justice’s philosophy about judicial review, President Obama’s desire for a justice with “empathy” and whether we might have a justice who did not serve in the appellate courts. I also asked him numerous questions from my liberal perspective, including whether ideological balance on the court would be better served by appointing assertive liberals instead of moderates.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Check This Out!

2009-05-10T22:30:00.001-04:00

Frank Rich referenced this YouTube video in his column today showing a 1981 television news report about a gentleman reading the San Francisco Examiner from his home computer. Considering how print journalism is rapidly becoming obsolete this video is bathed in irony.

Callous Mike

2009-05-10T15:15:00.006-04:00

Among the many kinds of emails I receive from readers is the assumption that I live in a blue liberal paradise in New York City. Typically, these emails will come from readers living in states like Texas or Alabama who feel alienated from neighbors who talk unabashedly about seceding or openly refer to Obama as “that nigger president.” Thankfully, I’m not exposed to that nonsense living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan.

Nonetheless, New York City is not a liberal panacea and Mayor Mike Bloomberg's administration is no champion of the poor. On May 9th, the Associated Press reported that city officials are charging homeless families for living in shelters. Hat tip to my Facebook buddy Terri DiMatteo for posting about this. According to the AP:

“The policy applies only to shelter residents who have income from jobs.

They could be expected to pay up to half their earnings.

Some shelter residents say the new rule will ruin their chances of saving enough money to get an apartment.

One single mother living in a Manhattan shelter tells The New York Times [NYT] she got a letter saying she had to give up $336 of the $800 she makes each month as a cashier.

The city says it is only charging people who can afford to pay.

About 2,000 families are expected to be covered by the new rule.”

One obvious flaw with this punitive measure is that it’s a disincentive to remain employed. As it is a working mother may be reluctant to leave her kids alone in a shelter to earn a pay-check. Now the Bloomberg administration is penalizing her for it!

I know many liberals in New York City who support Bloomberg. Whenever I talk to them I’m struck by how clueless they are. Bloomberg’s urbane and he’s been a pioneer in the information economy professionals like them have thrived in and still do even after Wall Street’s meltdown last fall. Also, Bloomberg supports the liberal position with respect to guns, abortion and the environment and the concerns of people living in shelters is not on their radar screen.

Bloomberg is certainly an improvement over his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. He’s been forward thinking with respect to the environment and transforming New York City to combat global warming. In many ways Bloomberg is an effective technocrat. But this isn’t the first time his administration has been callous towards the most vulnerable in our society. Sadly, he appears poised for a third term coronation this November without a vigorous challenge or critique of his record.

Bloomberg is already spending millions on advertising while candidates such as Comptroller William Thompson are restricted in order to remain compliant with the Campaign Finance Board and receive matching funds. And Bloomberg continues to coast without worrying about serving the needs of wage earners and tenants who can’t afford to live here.

Does anyone care that New York City’s mayor is allowed to be a commissar for plutocrats in a gilded age? Is there anyone who can mount an effective challenge and at least compel Bloomberg to be cognizant of city residents who don't thrive in his world? Will the fact that the working poor living in shelters are being penalized while Bloomberg caters to the rich during the worst economic climate since the Great Depression even be an issue this campaign?

Saturday Night Ramblings

2009-05-09T21:01:00.003-04:00

I’ve taken a needed break from blogging these past few days. Rather than post a topic oriented essay this evening I just have a few random thoughts rattling in my head:

President Obama used his bully pulpit today to promote credit card reform legislation currently making its way through congress. Obama’s YouTube fireside chat contained echoes of Vice President Biden’s Chief Economist Jared Bernstein. How I wish Bernstein had more influence than Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

I concur with New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s response to the so-called good news of “only” losing half a million jobs in April. I very much fear the corporate media and body politic will become complacent as long as the stock market continues to rally. Obama is too politically savvy to declare “mission accomplished” but his administration is kidding itself if they believe we have turned the corner.

Obama’s rhetoric is spot on but his deeds remain Wall Street centric. I have no faith in these so-called stress tests for the banks. My hunch is that the Obama administration is hoping to produce another “bubble” by restoring faith in our financial institutions with fuzzy math. Perhaps Obama is rationalizing that he would use a future bubble responsibly and invest in programs with long term returns for the public such as education, energy, health care and infrastructure. There are two risks with this approach. Risk number one is that the markets expose the fuzzy math just as they revealed the banks balance sheets as phony last year. Should that occur, as Paul Krugman noted in his recent column, Obama’s credibility will be vaporized and so will his ambitious agenda. Risk number two is that the Geithner/Summers plutocratic juggernaut successfully create their phony bubble, we become complacent and have another epic crash.

As New Yorkers know by now, Governor David Paterson and Senate Democrats finally agreed to a deal that bails out the MTA without draconian cuts in service and massive far hikes. This was achieved without any Republican votes. In the short term this good for New Yorkers struggling to keep their heads above water in this economy. Long term however there still is no viable plan to reform the MTA’s corrupt cronyism and culture of looting that New Yorkers always end up subsidizing.

As for Governor Paterson, he is sadly not ready for prime time. Paterson is reactive and constantly shifting his positions. His hapless performance is taking its toll as polls now show that voters prefer Eliot Spitzer who resigned in disgrace last year. Whereas Paterson navigates Albany’s tough terrain like a baby seal, Spitzer often seemed as if his sphincter muscle was on fire. Paterson is bullied and Spitzer tried to be a bully. Neither demonstrated leadership ability as New York 's chief executive. Hence, not enough has been accomplished since the Democrats retook the governor’s mansion in November 2006. Paterson still has time to turn things around but like most New York Democrats I’m hoping for a primary challenge. I’ve never been a fan of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo but as of now would support him over Paterson.

America owes a debt of gratitude to Supreme Court Justice David Souter for not retiring under President George W. Bush. I vividly recall when Souter was nominated by the first President Bush to replace Justice William Brennan in 1990. It was my senior year in college and one of my friends compared him to Robert Bork. Instead Souter turned out to be judicious and sensible. Conservatives chafed that Souter betrayed their cause. In my opinion, Souter presided as a traditional conservative jurist who respected precedent and didn’t overreact to the passions of the moment. Simply put, Souter didn’t betray conservatism. Conservatism’s metamorphosis to radicalism betrayed people like Souter. They wanted Souter to be a radical right wing activist and he opted to respect the Constitution instead.

I first became aware of Speaker Nancy Pelosi over a decade ago because of her diligent support of human rights in China over corporate interests. I appreciated her stolid advocacy of human rights in China and have long admired her staunch unapologetic liberalism.

Today, the Washington Post reported that a top Pelosi aide attended a briefing in 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were used. In recent weeks there have been numerous leaks to the press about what Pelosi knew with respect to "enhanced interrogation" techniques or torture as decent people refer to it. The CIA has apparently targeted Pelosi for damaging leaks just as they previously went after the Bush Administration during the Valerie Plame controversy as well as the who knew what about WMDs in Iraq infighting. One has to wonder if this contributed to Pelosi’s early declaration in 2006 not to investigate the Bush administration, initiate impeachment hearings and her holding back of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers. Obviously, the Bush administration had plenty of enablers in the Democratic Party for their crimes. If Pelosi was among them she should be held accountable along with other Democratic enablers and we liberal Democrats must insist upon it.

Happy Mother's Day to all tomorrow!

2009 Chapeau Blog Award Winners

2009-05-05T07:21:00.007-04:00

Chapeau announced their 2009 Blog Award winners today. As readers here know this blog nominated as one of two industry finalists for their news category. The winner in my category is an inspirational blog called Ashin Mettacara. Ashin Mettacara is devoted to promoting freedom against oppression in Asia. They deserve the recognition and thanks to the Chapeau competition I have become a regular reader of their site.

Chapeau's overall winner for 2009's Most Brilliant Blog was awarded to the Raymond. CC Tech Blog. Well done!

Thanks to all who encouraged and voted for me. I appreciate the support and was honored to be nominated as an industry finalist. My thanks to Chapeau for promoting the art of blogging with these awards.

State of the Elephant

2009-05-03T16:38:00.006-04:00

America’s center of political gravity is defined by the Republican Party’s intellectual and moral disintegration. Senator Arlen Specter’s recent defection is an example of the American people rejecting the Republican Party like a body discarding a toxic kidney.

Partisan Democrats are understandably enjoying the GOP’s self-destruction as President Obama and his congressional majority implements an ambitious agenda. As a liberal Democrat and devoted activist, I appreciate the sentiment. While in power Republicans not only demonstrated contempt for the rule of law but even waged war against the unique American ideal of a meritocracy. Hence, one of my early posts as a blogger was entitled “Brezhnev Republicans” in January 2006. Republicans have earned the contempt and derision of patriotic citizens for their insipid indecency.

Yet I am neither gleeful nor triumphal about the Republican Party’s self-destruction because America’s winner-take all political system favors two dominant parties. Independents and third party candidates may sometimes break through or influence the outcome of elections. We’ve seen examples of this with the Libertarian and Green parties in recent years. Nonetheless, a two party duopoly will likely maintain its stranglehold on America’s body politic.

As I do not regard the Democratic Party as a panacea my preference is for both parties to be healthy, mature, honorable and intelligent. I say that even as I am devoted to working (and agitating) within the Democratic Party to facilitate peace and economic and social justice. The ideals I espouse can’t be achieved without a credible and decent minded opposition party. Vigorous competition in the marketplace of ideas is an essential component of any healthy democracy.

There is an opening to be seized in the idea marketplace either by the Republican Party or another party able to fill the void as an organized opposition. That void is to provide a counterweight to the pervasive influence of Wall Street and the financial services sector. Just as there was more to this country than George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney there is also more to America than plutocrats such as Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the need to promote sectors of the economy other than banking and financial services. He reiterated that theme again in his recent interview with economist David Leonhardt:

“We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivative trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, we want some of them going into computer design.”

Yet the policies designed by his chief economic advisers Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers are excessively Wall Street centric. Americans across the political spectrum are hungering for an economic vision that transcends hyper-sized banks and multinational corporations at the expense of local communities, entrepreneurial small business owners and hard working wage earners.

Big government is needed to facilitate universal health care, ensure compliance with new environmental regulations that reduce carbon emissions and help workers retool during this period of economic calamity. Government however should not be empowering big banks and multinational corporations. My visceral sense is a majority consensus has emerged that while we need an activist government we should not be subsidizing big corporations.

Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding, his administration continues to promote the Wall Street economy that contributes nothing tangible to our society. I support much of President Obama’s domestic agenda with respect to health care, the environment, education and infrastructure. But I would welcome a viable opposition party that provides a counterweight to the Geithner/Summers vision of reforming the Wall Street economy the way Gorbachev tried to reform communism.

The Republican Party has neither the intellectual firepower nor temperament to provide that counterweight. Indeed, it was the Republican conservative ideology of deregulation at the behest of Wall Street that created the mess we’re in today. Hopefully, a new political class of technocratic populists can emerge that replaces the Republican Party and raises the bar of governing performance for Democrats.

Two centuries ago, farsighted leaders such as Abraham Lincoln abandoned the Whig Party when it imploded over the issue of slavery. The Whigs had a proud tradition that included leaders such as Speaker Henry Clay. But when it was no longer able to meet the challenges of its era, Lincoln’s Republican Party replaced it.

Similarly, the Republican Party had its day and boasted high caliber leaders such as President Dwight Eisenhower. It was also Republican Senate leader Ervin Dickerson that enabled President Lyndon Johnson to pass civil rights in the 1960s. Although I strongly disagreed with his zealous promotion of supply side economics, I admired Republican Jack Kemp who sincerely worked to make his party and America more inclusive. Kemp, who just died of cancer at 73, had his heart in the right place. Tragically, he was one of the few Republicans who did.

As of now, the big elephant is deranged and not capable of providing the credible opposition our democracy needs and deserves. It would not shock me if Democrats screwed up sufficiently to eventually merit being out of power. America would be better served if an opposition party of decent and intelligent people existed as an alternative. Presently, we don’t have one.

History however abhors a vacuum. If a coherent leadership class doesn’t emerge in the Republican Party soon, that vacuum will be filled by something else. Who knows, perhaps the Whigs will make a comeback.

Our Shallow & Vapid Corporate Media

2009-04-29T21:44:00.003-04:00

As usual, President Obama was poised and coherent during his third prime time press conference (click here for a transcript) this evening. After eight years of George W. Bush the way Obama presents himself still makes me proud. For damn sure I would not have been reassured if Bush were on that podium asking questions about the Swine Flu pandemic.

But so what? The real story to me this evening was our pathetic corporate media.

Why didn't any reporter ask if President Obama is receiving too much council from Wall Street centric economic advisers? Jeff Zelny of the New York Times actually asked what "surprised," "enchanted," "troubled" and "humbled" President Obama during his first 100 days! Yet his newspaper recently published a profile of Treasury Timothy Geithner's close relationships with the very people he was supposed to be overseeing while leading New York's Federal Reserve Bank. The New York Times also recently reported about bonuses in the banking industry returning to 2007 levels. Alas, Zelny opted to waist his prime time moment with vapid nonsense instead of asking questions the very newspaper he works for recently provoked!

There was some worthy give and take as Obama spoke eloquently of Winston Churchill who rejected torture while Great Britain was bombed by Nazi Germany in World War Two. So why didn't any reporter engage President Obama about investigating Bush administration officials who designed the criminal "enhanced interrogation techniques" policies? How come there were no questions challenging President Obama why he won't appoint a 9/11 type commission to investigate this horrific chapter in our history?

There were interesting questions and answers with respect to immigration reform and why Obama supported the Bush administration's policies regarding state secrets in court cases. I thought the press let President Obama off the hook too easily with respect to our increasing involvement in a Pakistan civil war. The President delivered reassuring platitudes regarding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and dodged further inquiry with the cliche about not answering "hypothetical questions."

Overall, I didn't learn much this evening because the corporate media seldom asks questions that illicit revealing answers. I admire President Obama. I'm glad he's president instead of John McCain. But I don't give a damn whether anything in the White House "enchants" him. Neither do the millions of people absorbing the brunt of our economic calamity or our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, tonight's press conference is a reminder of why we need the blogosphere.

As The Specter Turns

2009-04-28T21:46:00.004-04:00

When an office colleague told me this afternoon that Republican Senator Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic Party, I had a flashback. In the fall of 1987, I was a freshman at Sarah Lawrence College. One of my professors assigned us a paper regarding the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. A few days of research (research without the Internet!) were sufficient to turn me off to Bork’s strict constructionist perspective as well as his advocacy for excessive executive power.

One afternoon, I watched the televised Senate confirmation hearings inside our campus TV room near Charlie’s Place or “The Pub” as we called it with one of my classmates. I was especially interested to assess the performance of Senators Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. Biden, the Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time had just abandoned his presidential campaign following allegations of speech plagiarism. How would Biden conduct himself after this disappointment? Meanwhile, Kennedy was an especially assertive critic of Bork’s record and making headlines.

Yet it was Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter that captured my attention. I had never heard of Specter before. Bork and Specter engaged in a riveting intellectual repartee about the “original intent” of the Constitution, the right to privacy as well as executive power. Bork was a terrifying and brilliant advocate for the warped view of federalism that metastasized in the Reagan years and influenced future Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Watching those hearings it seemed to me that Republican Arlen Specter was the Judiciary Committee’s most persuasive critic of Bork’s reactionary dogma. Later that evening I called my Dad, who to this day remains the wisest voice about politics I know. We discussed the hearings and I complained that Specter belonged in the Democratic Party. My Dad sagely responded that it’s good for the country if Republicans have “moderate” voices such as Specter and he noted it enhanced the opposition’s credibility against reactionary figures such as Bork. Well, that seemed reasonable enough to me at the time.

Four years later I was bitterly disappointed when Specter supported Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court and contributed to the Republican lies about his former colleague, Anita Hill. Hill had accused Thomas of sexual harassment. At the time, Senator Ted Kennedy’s nephew was a defendant in a rape trial. As a result, Kennedy wasn’t comfortable aggressively challenging Thomas’s refutations of Hill’s testimony. Many liberals at the time were hoping that Specter would once again rise to the occasion and take the fight to Thomas as he did with Bork. Instead, Specter turned his fire on Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas’s nomination was approved.

To the detriment of consumers and wage earners, Arlen Specter was an enabler for Clarence Thomas to become a guaranteed supporter of reactionary activism on the Supreme Court. Following the 1987 Bork hearings, Specter became a favorite target of Republican conservatives and he was desperate to appease them with the Clarence Thomas hearings. Hence, Clarence Thomas is just as much a part of Specter’s legacy as Robert Bork.

Since the 1991 Thomas hearings, a pitiful template for Specter’s performance as Senator was established: for the next eighteen years he simultaneously appeased and disappointed the radical right that demanded purity. Meanwhile, moderates and liberals were continuously let down when Specter talked the talk with respect to civil liberties under President George W. Bush but failed to walk the walk.

Twenty-two years ago I would have been thrilled if Arlen Specter had joined the Democratic Party. Today, my perspective is rather cold. Yes, I acknowledge that once Al Franken of Minnesota is seated the Democratic caucus will have a filibuster proof majority on paper. And to the extent activist progressive oriented legislation is enacted as result of Specter’s defection, i.e., health care reform, that’s all to the good. Also, I’m enjoying the Republican Party’s humiliation after years of watching southern Democrats defect. Perhaps, Specter’s defection will be the start of a trend.

Specter himself however is likely to be a Joe Lieberman like presence in the caucus. He’s pro-corporatist/pro Wall Street and opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter is also hawkish, pro-war and very much representative of the establishment's flawed national security mindset that created the mess we’re currently in. Had Specter remained in the Republican Party, we had an outstanding opportunity to elect a genuine liberal from Pennsylvania in 2010.

Only radical crazies remain in Pennsylvania’s Republican Party. Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party now boasts 200,000 additional voters and Democrats could easily defeat Specter’s conservative antagonist, Pat Toomey who is Exhibit A of the far right’s psychosis. Had Specter somehow prevailed in his Republican primary fight, a liberal Democrat would have likely defeated him in the general election.

Hopefully, a credible and organized liberal will challenge Specter in the 2010 primary. A credible challenger for example might force Specter to flip flop on the Employment Free Choice Act and support worker rights. Specter has already demonstrated malleability to ensure his political survival whenever he appeased the far right.

Like a lot of politicians, expediency matters more to Arlen Specter than principle. Now that Specter’s a member of the Democratic caucus, we liberals need to aggressively persuade him that’s in his best interests to support our issues. A credible primary challenge is the best way to do just that.

That 100 Days Leadership Thing

2009-04-26T16:01:00.004-04:00

A charismatic president assumes power in a time of unprecedented turmoil after his hapless predecessor becomes a hated symbol of inertia. Financial institutions previously trusted for their forbearance are exposed as reckless stewards while the global economy implodes and regular folks who did nothing wrong are ruined. As job losses mount, unscrupulous demagogues at home and abroad exploit the chaos for nefarious objectives.

Discredited conservatives accuse the new president of socialism while anarchists under the guise of populism are determined to expropriate and redistribute private capital’s wealth no matter what the consequences. Yet the nation rallies to the new president even as progress is slow, uneven and plagued with setbacks. Critics on the left, including his wife, believe the new president is overly cautious while conservatives view him as akin to the anti-Christ.

The public discourse is volatile as the new president confounds his critics and towers over the body politic. Sound familiar? Generation-Y liberals may assume I’m referring to President Barack Obama’s first 100 days that we’ll be reading about next week. I am of course referring to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who first established the 100 days benchmark in 1933. FDR’s first 100 days were the foundation of twenty-years of Democratic Roosevelt/Truman administrations that forever changed American society and its place in the world.

FDR himself was brilliant and flawed as he navigated the country through perilous waters domestically and internationally. His leadership enabled America and its allies to prevail in World War Two and establish an enduring middle class. Yet there was also a dark side to the FDR years as the “imperial presidency” was launched and Japanese civilians were “relocated.” The imperial presidency later metastasized during the cold war following the 1947 National Security Act under Harry Truman.

Ultimately, the FDR years, like any presidency was a product of its time. Skirmishes between labor and business were violent. The gap between rich and poor was grotesque. Much of rural America didn’t have electricity and whites routinely murdered their black neighbors. Anti-Semitic demagogues such as Father Charles Coughlin polluted the airwaves. Industrial leaders like Henry Ford as well as national hero, aviator Charles Limburg, openly expressed their admiration for Adolph Hitler.

Capitalism as well as the concept of democracy itself seemed to be retreating as Hitler in Germany, Josef Stalin in Soviet Russia and Italy’s Benito Mussolini maneuvered for global domination. The Japanese Empire brutally worked to establish their “Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and carved up the Chinese mainland in the 1930s. Americans hoped to avoid foreign wars and FDR promised to keep us out as he plotted behind the scenes to save civilization.

In any era, leadership is not for the meek or faint of heart. FDR projected jaunty confidence and empathy for the downtrodden as he defined America’s center of political gravity on his terms. His leadership style was one of calculated confrontation and FDR skillfully utilized his political capital to take on conservative agents of the status quo at home while inspiring an international alliance against implacable enemies abroad. Seventy-five years after his first inauguration many historians regard him as America’s greatest president.

President Obama’s current challenges and leadership style is understandably compared to FDR – especially has we approach his 100 day benchmark. His support remains notably impressive in spite of the plutocratic dynamic duo of Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner or his waffling with respect to prosecuting crimes committed by the Bush Administration.

Every week we set new records for unemployment claims and the Wall Street bailouts continue. Yet the public continues to believe in his leadership. I do too even as I fret over Obama’s handling of the banking crisis and worry his presidency will be consumed by efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.

My interpretation of President Obama’s political standing is that his support is partly attributed to a conservative minority that is bereft of ideas and maturity. There is the faux populist outrage of “tea parties” to the sniveling temper tantrums of conservatives when Obama shakes hands with Hugo Chavez. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh look like fools as they critique Obama’s handling of the Somali Pirates hostage crisis while the administration initiates a successful rescue operation. Republicans in Texas and Georgia speak openly of secession while a more sophisticated majority wants to come together and solve problems.

The public face of conservatism is angry, xenophobic, homophobic, shrill and insipid and no longer taken seriously. It's not just that conservative ideology is thorougly discredited as it was in 1933. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and Newt Gingrich are almost cartoonish in their political opposition. Hence, the real debate with respect to public policy about issues ranging from the potential fall of Pakistan, engaging Iran, addressing global warming, strengthening public education, rebuilding infrastucture, renewable energy and health care is between the center and the left. The center of political gravity is being redefined by Barack Obama because Republicans don't belong at the grownups table.

On the left, people like me critique the administration so he will seize the moment and push the envelope further. We want accountability for the Bush Administration’s crimes, a swift reversal of the Wall Street centric economy that has placed millions of Americans on the abyss of destitution and a public option for health care. The end result of impatient liberal/left critics and America’s puerile conservatives is that President Obama owns the political center just as FDR did.

Whether Obama takes full advantage of his unique stature will take far longer than 100 days to know. This is only the end of the beginning.

Calamity Jane

2009-04-20T22:18:00.004-04:00

Remember how Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not want California Democrat Jane Harman to become head of the House Intelligence Committee after the 2006 mid-term elections? Well, Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that Harman,

“was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would ‘waddle into’ the AIPAC case ‘if you think it'll make a difference,’ according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, 'This conversation doesn't exist.’"

These allegations with respect to AIPAC’s lobbying efforts and Harman are not new. Stein’s reporting of the NSA wiretap however adds an entirely new wrinkle. Even more damning is Stein’s report that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dropped the Justice Department’s investigation of Harman so the Democrat would help defend the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program just prior to the New York Times breaking the story.

Harman’s office has denied the allegations. Obviously, the Justice Department must thoroughly investigate the Harman/AIPAC connection as well as Alberto Gonzales’s conduct in this matter. Once again we learn why Alberto Gonzales is arguably the worst public servant in the history of America’s executive branch.

With respect to Israeli espionage, I’ve never been judgmental of any country, including ours, for spying on either friends or foes. That is the real world. In the game of nations, governments frequently conduct intelligence operations to influence the politics of “friends” and rival states in accordance with their interests. Israel is a practitioner of this as is the United States, China, Russia, Iran, India and so forth.

However, this matter once again illustrates the need for a strong political counterweight to AIPAC’s disproportionate influence on American politics and policies. Liberal Jewish Americans like myself who are critical of Israel’s immoral and dangerous policies must be at the forefront of that political counterweight to provide the necessary cover. Delusional zealots in America and Israel have engaged in immoral and self-destructive policies. As someone who cares about Israel’s future as well as their national character, I hope this espionage case serves as a wakeup call.

In the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder needs to demonstrate respect for the law and convene a grand jury forthwith for both Jane Harman and Alberto Gonzales. Given AIPAC’s disproportionate influence in Washington it seems likely neither Harman nor Gonzales are alone with their disregard for the law when it comes to Israel. I don’t blame Israel or AIPAC for exploiting their influence. Any nation would do the same with that sort of leverage.

I blame our political system that allows it to flourish. Prosecuting offenders such as Harman will hopefully have a “chilling effect” on politicians from betraying American interests to AIPAC in the future. As for Gonzales, he should have been frog marched years ago.

Truth & No Consquences

2009-04-19T15:08:00.007-04:00

Unless hermetically sealed in a dungeon, I assume readers are aware of the “torture memos” authored by Bush administration lawyers in 2002-2003 and released to the public this past week by the Justice Department. Their release followed intense debate between Attorney General Eric Holder who advocated transparency and CIA Director Leon Pannetta who argued on behalf of secrecy.

Each time I started to read one I stopped out of disgust. I finally read them all yesterday after initially avoiding it. Ultimately, as citizens we all have a duty to familiarize ourselves with this dark chapter in our history yet it took me a couple days to overcome my reluctance and read these documents. Having done so I urge everyone to do the same and not simply rely upon the punditocracy and blogosphere for interpretation.

President Obama courageously and in my view rightly, authorized their release because we must not shield shameful truths under the false pre-text of national security. The criticism of former Bush officials notwithstanding, releasing these memos is an important step in the Obama administration’s efforts to rehabilitate America’s image.

The cost to our national security in releasing memos with respect to banned torture techniques is outweighed by the higher consideration of restoring America’s respectability with the civilized world. We can’t ignore our immoral transgressions because the world hasn’t and the national security argument is a false construct. Indeed, these now banned policies were ineffective at best and harmed our national security by further radicalizing the world against us.

Many on the left are understandably outraged at the administration’s decision not to prosecute intelligence operatives who implemented these policies and have invoked the “Nuremberg defense” in venting their criticism. I sympathize with their argument even as I feel conflicted about it. Yes, I acknowledge feeling conflicted about what to do with CIA employees who were promised legal cover. Not all “truths” are absolute.

It doesn’t seem right to prosecute these people after the Justice Department promised they would not be prosecuted in the first place. To do sends a message that we expect these people to do our dirty work with the understanding they will be abandoned once the going gets tough.

I’d like to think I would have the moral courage to say no after receiving orders to engage in torture and resist the criminal rationalizations of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department lawyer John Yoo. It’s easy for any of us on the outside to say these people should be prosecuted. We might feel differently if we had to walk in their shoes.

It also doesn’t seem right to simply ignore what they did. The CIA required cover from the Justice Department because they knew the Bush administration torture guidelines were illegal as well as immoral. Suppose this administration or succeeding presidents order their operatives to conduct immoral and illegal activities with respect to future detainees?

Is it not better to establish a precedent that punishes “following orders” that are illegal and reward those who stand up for the rule of law? Even if these employees are not criminally prosecuted they should pay a professional price and be fired. The culture needs to be changed and won’t be without some kind of accountability.

Without hesitation I firmly believe those who helped design these policies such as White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo merit prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Prosecution should also include Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush and anyone else identified either through a truth and reconciliation commission or congressional investigation as designing and ordering criminal policies in our country’s name. It is to our everlasting shame that foreign courts are willing to prosecute Americans for war crimes, while we allow our own to go on as if nothing ever happened.

President Obama apparently believes absolving the prior administration for war crimes is analogous to President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon: the only way to allow the country to move ahead. At least President Ford though “pardoned” Richard Nixon. The act of pardoning Nixon, although condemned at the time, at least acknowledged the man committed acts subject to prosecution. And Nixon had already paid a price.

There has been no reckoning for the figures that shamed our country or any sort of official acknowledgment that they engaged in criminal behavior. Congressional Democrats should have insisted upon accountability while the Bush administration was in power. It is to the everlasting shame of the Democratic Party that they did not impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales after he later became Attorney General, when they had the chance.

I believe a mature democracy should be able to conduct the people's business and simultaneously pursue the truth no matter where or how high up it leads. If President Obama however truly believes prosecuting former members of the Bush administration, including Bush and Cheney to be a distraction the nation can’t afford, then he should pardon them. Let's assume for the sake of argument that President Obama is correct. That criminal prosecution of Bush, Cheney and their minions would paralyze the body politic at a time when action is needed on multiple fronts.

At least the act of pardoning sends a message that the United States of America acknowledges their wrongdoing for posterity. It would also forever mark those pardoned long after bloggers like me are dead. Pardoning them would further stain those who enabled their heinous policies. Those enablers not only include the Republican Party but Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Committee who were briefed on these policies. Even if the entire Bush cabal never serves a second in prison, pardoning them is far preferable than simply “not prosecuting” the most feculent administration in American history.

Otherwise, releasing these memos amounts to truth without any consequences. And that's not acceptable.

Democracy Should Begin At Home

2009-04-15T17:13:00.002-04:00

On Sunday I interviewed Yale Law School professor and electoral legal expert, Heather Gerken, about her idea for a Democracy Index. Gerken argues in her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It, that we need a metric to facilitate accountability and reform in our voting system. For more details about her book and our podcast interview, click here.

I thought about Professor Gerken today with respect to the recent Norm Coleman/Al Franken election controversy in Minnesota as well as the unresolved Scott Murphy/Joe Tedisco congressional race in upstate New York. Eight plus years after Bush vs. Gore, our system remains pathetically dysfunctional. Today, Gerken communicated to me in an email that,

"These races reveal precisely the problem I'm trying to address. We only see problems in the election system when it is close, as with the Coleman/Franken race. Minnesota is widely thought to be a well-run election system, and I have every reason to think that it is. The problems the Coleman/Franken debacle revealed were the problems that exist everywhere. One reason to have a Democracy Index is that it would let us see those problems even in the absence of a close race. That would help us do a better job of diagnosing what ails the system. It would allow us to prevent problems before they throw the results of a close race into question. And it would widen the window from reform, which typically closes the moment the election is resolved and the media turn off their cameras and microphones."

Gerken's efforts on behalf of a "Democracy Index" to assess the electoral performance of our states and localities illustrates a bitter irony: America continues to shed blood and treasure in the name of democracy and freedom abroad while its voting system decays at home. Indeed, progress in Afghanistan and Iraq, will partly be measured by our monitoring of upcoming elections in both countries while too many Americans are prevented from registering or disenfranchised at the voting booth.

It’s especially remarkable to consider that we likely have more data collected with respect to the electoral process Iraq and Afghanistan than our own country. As Gerken revealed in our Sunday interview, we don’t even know how many Americans attempted to vote in the 2008 presidential election.

How can we ever hope to help other countries develop their own democracies when ours is in such disrepair? Gerken’s “Democracy Index” suggests a way forward to assess where the problems areas are and effect repairs. Yesterday, President Obama spoke eloquently about a “New Foundation” for our economy and society. A cornerstone of that foundation should include finally addressing the soft underbelly of America’s wobbly election infrastructure.

Wednesday Musings

2009-04-15T13:04:00.003-04:00

I’m home sick today with a brutal cough/cold combination sapping my energy. Even so, I must get my blogging fix and muse about current events:

Tax day has me thinking of my grandfather. As I’ve shared previously on this blog, my grandfather came to the United States just prior to Nazi Germany’s occupation of Poland along with his six brothers. Years ago my Mom told me the story of when she teased my grandfather as he did the annoying grownup chore of completing his tax returns. My grandfather rebuked her and said, “I’m proud to pay my taxes in this country.” He genuinely believed it was his patriotic duty to contribute and he was not wealthy. I wonder what he would think of these “tea bagging” conservatives, especially the wealthy ones, who are so contemptuous of their civic obligations even as they claim superior patriotism to everyone else.

I too am opposed to the continued bailouts of fraudulent financial institutions. Indeed, outrage over the bailouts is something both liberals and conservatives share these days. Nonetheless, it is the conservatives who are promoting tax rebellions that engineered the very “starve the beast” deregulating crusade that facilitated our current economic calamity. With the private sector on life support after Wall Street’s transgressions it makes little sense to starve the only entity capable of stimulating the economy on a wide scale: our federal government.

Understandably, we Americans are fixated on our new young president. Yet, there is something rather egocentric about our obsession and I am as guilty of that as anyone. It is especially easy for Americans to forget that not everything in this world is about our politics, policies, priorities or perceptions. For example, Thailand has been rocked by anti-government protests in recent days. Today, Thailand’s government announced it has revoked the passport of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra after accusing him of encouraging the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. Shinawatra was recently convicted of corruption and has been abroad since his 2006 deposition. Shinawatra has recently asked the United Front to practice nonviolence. Hopefully, a just resolution can be achieved in that troubled country with no more loss of life.

Regrettably, the daring rescue of Captain Richard Phillips by Navy Seals has not served as a deterrent as Somali pirates attacked another American cargo ship today. This particular ship was delivering needed food aid and far more than American ships are being targeted in this vast territory of maritime commerce. The Obama administration’s posture with respect to piracy has been firm yet measured. That will frustrate some but it's far better than exploiting the situation to irrationally escalate the “war on terror.”

The Obama administration is putting considerable diplomatic and military muscle to reinforce Pakistan against militant Islam. The conventional wisdom within America’s foreign policy establishment is that Pakistan is too important to fail. Yet it's the Pakistani government that appeased the Taliban and al Quaeda by allowing Sharia law to be imposed in the Swat Valley. American and NATO can only do so much to shape events there. If Pakistan’s government does fall to Islamic radicals what then? Would India occupy Pakistan with Washington’s blessing? How would China or India respond to that development?

Much of the diplomatic chatter with respect to an American-Iranian rapprochement is really about addressing common strategic interests along the Afghanistan-Pakistani corridor. The Bush administration failed to exploit Iranian misgivings about the Taliban and al Quaeda. President Obama is hoping to make up for lost time but time is running out. Ultimately, success is not contingent upon a military surge but the current diplomatic activity taking place. When factoring in the nuclear arsenals of Pakistan and India as well as the Chinese, Iranian and Russian interests at work, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict seems almost trivial.

The Democracy Index: An Interview With Law Professor Heather Gerken

2009-04-12T15:11:00.005-04:00

On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, “How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index.” Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index (“EPI”) shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a “Democracy Index” would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.

Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:

“This index should take what Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji calls a ‘moneyball approach.’ The word ‘moneyball,’ of course, refers to Michael Lewis’ book of the same name about the success of the Oakland A’s after management substituted hard numbers and empirical research for the gut-level judgments of baseball scouts in making hiring decisions.

Similarly, the Democracy Index could change the terms of the debate by giving voters something new: moneyball politics. It would offer cold, hard numbers and comparative data in place of atmospherics and anecdotes. It would provide bottom-line results in place of subjective judgments. It would let reformers talk like corporate executives, not starry-eyed idealists. And, most important, it would enable the voters to hold election officials accountable for their missteps.

In the end, a ranking system would work for a simple reason: No one wants to be at the bottom of the list.”

Gerken further described her Democracy Index proposal and identified the major obstacles to good election practices with her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It (Princeton University Press). Her book is an accessible 181 pages and postulates that we need more facts about our election practices and that a ranking metric is our best hope to facilitate accountability and reform. Gerken also contends that our broken electoral system has less to do with intended malice than “deferred maintenance,” a term typically applied to failed infrastructure such as broken bridges.

Shortly after Gerken’s LegalTimes article was published, Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, put her concept into proposed legislation and within a year, Congress set aside $10 million to fund model data collection programs in five states and the Pew Center. Other foundations also sponsored conferences and initial research. On March 1, 2007, Obama referred to these initiatives on the Senate floor as,

“an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information.”

Hence, Gerken's efforts illustrated at least the potential for action from the body politic to facilitate electoral reform but obviously, more needs to be done.

With respect to electoral law, Gerken is among the most authoritative voices in the country. In 2006, Gerken joined the Yale Law School faculty where she teaches election and constitutional law. Previously, Gerken clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and was an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She has also written for the New Republic, Roll Call, and Legal Affairs and has been a frequent media commentator.

Gerken was among several commentators who appeared on Charlie Rose’s program the very evening the Supreme Court rendered its fateful decision in Bush vs. Gore. During the 2008 presidential election, Gerken served on Barack Obama’s election protection team.

Gerken agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about her book and proposal for a Democracy index. Our conversation was just over seventeen minutes and can be accessed via the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

The Slow Pivot

2009-04-11T14:26:00.003-04:00

I am preparing for a podcast interview tomorrow afternoon and family obligations during Passover prevented me from posting more frequently this week.

In the meantime though, President Obama's weekly address is an opportunity to note that at least rhetorically, he's attempting to condition the American people for today’s new world order. Yet at the same time, Obama is also trying to be reassuring with religious references to Passover and Easter as well as reiterating that American "leadership" is the key to meeting today's global challenges.

It's a tough balancing act as most Americans grew up in a world in which we were respected and feared and enjoyed enduring prosperity. After World War Two, the global financial system that emerged known as Bretton Woods, was exceptionally favorable to the United States. Furthermore, America was the number one super power in a bipolar world. For damn sure nobody used the term "existential threat" with respect to nation states such as Iran.

Today however, both China and India are emerging superpowers, Russia has become a petro state on steroids, globalization is depressing American wages, Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal is on the verge of becoming a failed state, addressing global warming requires difficult consensus and stateless terrorist actors are consumers in the nuclear proliferation market. Even worse, greed and insipid American leadership ruined the same financial system we created and we find ourselves at the mercy of other countries forbearance as a result.

Hence, while America remains powerful, we must pivot from an empire culture to a more cooperative posture. Yet simultaneously, America must remain vigilant in a dangerous world in which conflict and brutality remain humanity's default state in too many places. So, President Obama preaches cooperation and diplomacy while requesting congress appropriate $83 billion for war.

People like me are pushing Obama to pivot from empire to cooperation more aggressively. Personally, while I acknowledge the world is certainly dangerous, I believe Obama's foreign policy is still too unilateral. Politically however, I suspect Obama is straddling the same fence most Americans are sitting on: many feel isolated after George W. Bush, ashamed at the immorality of our foreign policy transgressions, but also don’t want to relinquish our status as a superpower and leader.

Today’s weekly address illustrates the challenge confronting Obama as he gently nudges Americans to leave the perks of an empire behind while retaining his political viability. I wish him well in that endeavor but believe he will eventually have to cook up a new omelet by breaking a few eggs. A slow pivot may not be fast enough.

A Statesman ... I Hope

2009-04-07T07:46:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite movies is “A Very British Coup” which adapted Chris Mullin’s 1982 novel for television. The story takes place during the Cold War, as left wing working class politician Harry Perkins becomes Prime Minister. Perkins does well for a while but the entrenched forces of the status quo conspire against him. One scene to me that summed up the entire movie is when Perkins asks one of his conservative antagonists why he’s so feared. And the rather dry response Perkins received was and I am quoting from memory here, “You’re showing an alarming trend of becoming a statesman.” Hence, Mr. Perkins had to be taken down.

President Obama’s support remains high and his performance on the international stage is cementing his image as a statesman. I was enormously proud of my President yesterday when he spoke before the Turkish parliament and said,

“America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim World, cannot and will not just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.”

After eight years of George W. Bush’s insipid indecency combined with the sophomoric Republican opposition, Obama’s stature is on steroids. I disagree strongly with his endorsement of the Larry Summers/Timothy Geithner approach to the banking crisis and also believe his foreign policy is overly hawkish. Yet I remain an enthusiastic supporter of Obama’s otherwise liberal initiatives as outlined in his budget proposal that the Blue Dog status quo forces are carving up. Obama is also the first President in my lifetime that I genuinely like from either party. The country and the world need Obama’s presidency to be successful.

Alas, I can’t help but worry. First and foremost is that pesky thing called reality If America has learned anything from the George W. Bush era is that we ignore reality at our peril. Eventually, it catches up and closes in. Obama’s fraudulent handling of the banking crisis (see my “Placebo Economics” post) is a ticking time bomb. I hope the plutocratic dynamic duo of Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner knows what they’re doing. I suspect however, that their criminal complicity with the A.I.G. bailouts and fetish like devotion to hyper-sized financial institutions will doom Obama’s otherwise good intentions.

My other concern is that predatory conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats like Evan Bayh regard Obama’s support the same way British Tories perceived Harry Perkins popularity. They never believed Perkins to be legitimate and determined he should not be allowed to become a statesman. Perkins lost his day of reckoning. Obama’s day of reckoning with those forces opposed to his good intentions is fast approaching. I hope to hell he wins.

American Entropy

2009-04-05T22:04:00.005-04:00

Americans are taught that we’re guaranteed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since World War Two, most Americans benefited from an enduring ethos that the only limitations on success were our abilities. As long as one was willing to work hard the basic essentials of life would never be in doubt and for those with unique ambition, foresight and special gifts, anything was possible. And for those unable to provide for themselves, America was a compassionate country that didn’t turn its back on our most vulnerable.

Yes I know too many Americans were victims of racism, predatory capitalism and a whole range of injustices. I also realize that wages have been on the decline since the 1970s as the middle class was increasingly squeezed. At various times numerous cities, such as my home city here in New York, crime was rampant. All that is true enough. Nonetheless, most post-war Americans enjoyed an inner confidence stemming from a feeling of basic security. There was always a paycheck, shelter, affordable healthcare whenever you needed it and America had the power to project its will and prerogatives upon the globe.

My grandfather to me epitomized the American dream. At the age of 16 he managed to escape Poland just before Hitler invaded with his six brothers. Family legend has it that my great grandfather, a Polish judge, realized long before his neighbors the threat Nazi Germany meant for European Jewry and did what he had to do to get his sons to America. My great grandmother protested all her children leaving but my great grandfather’s wisdom was proven correct in September 1939.

My grandfather proceeded to earn a modest living in the garment industry. He never became an entrepreneur, couldn’t hit a curveball and lived his entire life as a hard working wage earner. Yet that was enough to raise two twin daughters, own a home and even a tiny summer cottage with my grandmother. Those things were possible for people like my grandfather who fit snugly in America’s post World War Two middle class.

Alas, life is now spinning out of control for Americans accustomed to the power of shaping their own destiny. You may have terrific drive, ambition and ability but still be unable to provide for your family. Essentially, our destiny as human beings was ceded to reckless traders, credit default swaps, HMO accountants that have more autonomy than doctors and war mongering imbeciles with delusions of empire. Ironically, much of this was done during a forty-year conservative era that promised more prosperity and freedom but instead resulted in a crumbling empire.

Twenty years ago when the Soviet Union began its descent it produced a young vigorous leader named Michael Gorbachev who presided over the decline of a nuclear empire with tolerance and sense. Alas, Gorbachev was unable to reform Soviet communism and unwilling to completely reject its deficiencies.

Similarly, America has now produced a leader in President Barack Obama that seems uniquely qualified for the moment. On the world stage he presents himself as a figure able to adroitly function in this multi-polar world that doesn’t bend to America’s will. Sadly, Obama seems determined to reform Wall Street capitalism just as Gorbachev tried to fix Soviet communism even as both were and are irredeemable.

After Gorbachev, Russia’s lean years became even leaner. If Obama and his plutocrat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner maintain their current course, that same fate appears to await America as well. Obama is a decent man and most Americans support him yet the country as a whole can feel the unraveling taking place in its guts.

You learn much about yourself, your friends, your neighbors and family in this environment. Most people are inclined to pull together, sacrifice for the greater good, and extend a helping hand to those in need. Many on the abyss of despair and destitution manage to avoid losing themselves and dig deep for reservoirs of strength, ingenuity to survive and preserve their integrity. We’ve all read about or personally know inspirational people making the best of horrific circumstances and even helping to uplift others.

Yet an unraveling in American society is taking place as the cascade of ruin accelerates. This to me is somewhat illustrated by the three consecutive days of shooting incidents. The motivations for each incident were different and not specifically the result of current events. Even so, when people feel control over their own destinies slipping from their grasp, some will respond with irrational violence.

That doesn’t excuse the crimes. Plenty of citizens have not and will not give in or lose themselves to homicidal behavior regardless of the adversities confronting them whether it’s losing a job to cheap immigrant labor or their wife to another man. Tragically though, these incidents will likely increase in the months and years ahead as they reflect withdrawal symptoms of Americans coming down from the high of our empire drug.

We are living in an era of entropy now. Eventually, American society will adjust and establish a new economic-social paradigm for our times and the sooner the better. In the meantime though, there will be more incidents of desperate people trying to reclaim control of their fate by purchasing a gun and killing their designated scapegoats. Suicides will likely increase too. Such incidents will reinforce the sense of disorder in our daily lives as we cope with the future.

Private enterprise, government and iconic institutions, can no longer be relied upon to facilitate the stability and prosperity we Americans have come to regard as our birthright. It is therefore imperative during these times that we strengthen our ties to family, community and friends. Hyper-individualism is no longer sustainable and a new cultural ethos of the sum of the parts being greater than the whole is the best antidote to this disorienting entropy.