Farewell to a Good Man

I feel that my whole life is a contribution.
            Pete Seeger

From the moment I was exposed to political philosophy, I embraced a conservative paradigm.  From the moment I was first enraptured by music, my tastes gravitated toward the melodies that filled my home.  Over the years, more than a few people have made comments that my political leanings are at odds with the music that makes me happy.  I don’t apologize for this because, like most thinking at its best, who and what I am is not black and white or easily definable.  My opinions are not to be labeled by anyone.  It is for this reason that, this past week, I was sad and pained at the passing of legendary singer and activist Pete Seeger.     

My mother weaned me on country music and while it did not take, I found the stories and the history of the older songs compelling.  Mr. Seeger was equally compelling in his stories of the downtrodden and the forgotten ones.  He sang songs about and to those who existed on the outskirts of this country’s blessings.  In doing so, he provided a voice for those who previously had none.  His songs brought their plight to listeners who had no first-hand experience.  As a part of my political and musical education, I came to understand what it meant to exist in poor, rural regions or suffer the cruel hand of oppression. Songs like “We Shall Overcome”, “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy” and his many renditions of traditional American music have highlighted the plight of those subject to forces beyond their control.  

Beyond the music that highlighted the troubles of many Americans, Pete Seeger displayed a courage seldom seen in our more modern activists.  He joined those who were being hunted down and killed simply for being black or transient.  He sang for them, in front of them.  He was not content to simply allow his words to pour into microphones and emanate from studios and vinyl.  Mr. Seeger traveled the country and listened to the troubles of others.  He sat with the black man, the migrant farm worker, the Native American and the Vietnam veteran.  He listened to what they had to say and in return, he gave them kindness, a sympathetic ear and his time.  His personal courage allowed him to see what was truly happening in this country and craft tunes that changed generations.  

For Pete Seeger, a champion of folk music though he bristled at the moniker, he felt his music was for everyone and much of his career was spent in tiny halls, living rooms and children summer camps.  His love of singing was matched by his desire for others to sing with him and his time performing for and with children consisted of his greatest moments.  “If you sing for children, you can’t really say there’s no hope.”  According to PBS’s American Masters, he said that some of his songs were deemed innocuous enough but masterpieces like “This Land is Your Land” and others carried its own message and became standards in the process.   

If there is a part of his life and his message that struck the greatest discordant note with my beliefs, it was his stance on war and communism.  I’m not a pacifist and I don’t hold with communism.  To that end, some of his Vietnam songs and his visit to North Vietnam as well as his dalliances with communism in the 1940s struck me more naïveté – a child-like perception of how the world works.  He described leaving the communist party based on revelations about Josef Stalin but attributed benevolent intentions on the part of the North Vietnamese.  This though their rule was marked by re-education camps, torture and murder.  While utopic, I still marvel at his dedication and willingness to throw himself into the fire.  Seldom do people have the courage of their convictions and Pete Seeger was one and worthy of admiration.  

I love listening to his voice.  His rendition of “Guantanamera” and his original “Turn, Turn, Turn” fill me with emotion.  He was part of an education that included the works of Arlo Guthrie, Johnny Cash, the Kingston Trio and the Chieftains.  The story of ordinary people and the hardships they faced and joys they treasured are a doorway to another time and people like Pete Seeger made that story accessible.  Agree with him or not, he was a man of convictions who did not stray but held the line.  He wrote and sung the words of generations of people.  Sadly, no one today can match his eloquence and his passion.  He contributed and he will be missed.

 

 

The 1912 Election

For some people, politics and elections are an exercise in patience and endurance.  For these people, elections are a string of distorted facts, hyperbole and one boring candidate trying to talk over another.  Often, the major complaint of American political elections, particularly the presidential ones, is that they are made up of candidates not worthy of the office.  However, there was one election that would see not two but three men who spent a nearly combined twenty years in the Oval Office.  It is not spoken about often, but the 1912 election is one of the more interesting ones of the 20^th century.  

Theodore Roosevelt (1901-9) had some regrets in life but likely none more than the day he said, during the 1904 presidential campaign, that he would not seek a second elected term.  After his presidency, he grew increasingly disenchanted with his hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, to continue his progressive policies to the point of throwing his hat into the ring once more for 1912.  President Taft (1909-13) was no Rough Rider but the corpulent chief executive was a good steward of progressive ideals though he had lost a key fight against the old guard Republicans over tariffs.  The Democrats, sensing a weakened Republican party, selected New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) to carry them to victory.  The former president of Princeton University made a career of smashing people’s misconceptions of the timid academic and proved more than capable in the rough and tumble world of New Jersey politics.     

The campaign would be remembered as one of the more lively ones in recent history.  All three were men were progressives, all believing that the government needed to take on a more expansive role.  However, that is where the togetherness ended.  Mr. Roosevelt was pushing a more radical version of his Square Deal, coined New Nationalism, with increased business regulations and social welfare.  Governor Wilson’s New Freedom sought to favor small entrepreneurship and the breakup of the large corporations.  President Taft, a lawyer who never wanted to be president, spent the beginning of the campaign questioning his options. 

From a sensational point of view, the campaign was known for two things.  In October, the former president was shot in the chest while in Milwaukee by a man upset about the idea of third terms.  He survived partly because the bullet hit his bulky, folded speech in his suit breast pocket.  It was still dangerous, however, because he insisted on given an hour and a half speech before going to the hospital.  Both President Taft and Governor Wilson suspended their campaigns and offered condolences but that was as magnanimous as it got.  Teddy Roosevelt resorted to attacking his former friend by calling him a “fat head.”  Formerly blasé President Taft struck back, calling his former mentor a “demagogue” and a “dangerous egotist.”   

Woodrow Wilson, a minister’s son, won the election easily against a divided Republican opposition.  He would lead the U.S. through World War One and tried to take an isolated nation into an internationalist role.  He signed into existence the Federal Reserve System as well as the Federal Trade Commission.  He was only the second Democrat to win the White House since the Civil War.  The Rough Rider retired to New York and spent much of his time attacking President Wilson’s lack of response to European aggression.  William Howard Taft left politics altogether and re-entered the legal profession, teaching at Yale for eight years.  Then, in 1921, President Warren Harding gave him his dream job when Professor Taft became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. 

Seldom has a presidential election seen such a tandem of candidates and likely, it will not happen again.  While, in many ways, Woodrow Wilson’s presidency is seen as a success, it marked an end to the progressive period and a re-commitment to isolationism and conservatism.  Though seldom discussed to the extent of its importance, the 1912 election was unique in its ramification for the future of the country and its direction.  It is worthy of further study and shows that politics is anything but a boring process filled with colorless characters.      

The Need to Reverse the Prevailing Winds

This past week, I came across an old episode of Firing Line – the William F. Buckley show where he interviewed various prominent figures.  The show paired the noted conservative thinker with the famed philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky.  The topic of conversation was the Vietnam War and the appropriateness of the conflict.  As I watched these two learned individuals, it dawned on me just how far we have digressed in our current political arena.  It is clear that what journalists expect of themselves and their audience has changed radically over the years. 

William F. Buckley was my political inspiration; the man who shook me from my general ambivalence and provided a prise de conscience to the importance of intellectualism and conservatism.  In his show, he was unapologetically adroit and demanded that his audience keep up, refusing to minimize or trivialize his subject matter.  The people he invited were equally demanding, speaking at the highest levels.  Together, Mr. Buckley and his guests represented the highest form of political and social discourse.  Additionally, the erudite, conservative thinker also had a shockingly biting sense of humor that left his audience wondering if they actually heard correctly.  On one occasion, Mr. Chomsky asked if his opponent remained seated on his Firing Line show because he couldn’t think on his feet.  Mr. Buckley, in his slow and deliberate drawl, responded, “It is hard to stand up under the weight of all that I know.” 

When held against the famous debates between Mr. Buckley and men like Gore Vidal, James Baldwin, Saul Alinsky and the aforementioned Noam Chomsky, what stands as political discussion today does not even deserve the characterization of a “cheap imitation.”  Such labeling would suggest an attempt to maintain the standards of those previous shows, however seldom achieved.  The pundits found on CNN, MSNBC and FOX are deplorable and not worthy of comparison.  There are a handful of people who consistently elevate the discussion – men like George Will and Bill Kristol.  Yet, they too must submit themselves to the altar of television commercialism and superficiality.  The yelling and lack of proper discourse often forces one to wonder when or if the adults will ever rescue our “news” from the ditch in which it seems firmly entrenched.   

What would be the benefit of the return of such programming?  That answer could fill pages but in short, it would re-establish the importance of being informed, something to which the American electorate seems, at times, unwilling to submit themselves.  Mr. Buckley once said that, “The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry.”  Like history, politics and the issues of today are best consumed in a medium that allows for the greatest exposition.  This, hopefully, can engender greater, more informative discussions rather than the tendency to speak in slogans.  Newspapers of today are responding to budget cuts by providing less, making their product irrelevant.  If they are to go the way of the dinosaur, best to go out with the highest demands and standards as possible.     

A second point suggests an appropriateness of serious discussions over serious issues where quick attempts to simplify and marginalize are the order of the day.  Last weekend, the Documentary Channel aired a show that featured a 1963 roundtable discussion between James Baldwin, Joseph Mankiewicz, Charlton Heston, Harry Belafonte, Marlon Brando and Sidney Poitier on the subject of civil rights.  All the men had recently attended Martin Luther King, Jr.’s march upon the capital.  In a solemn and disciplined tone befitting the seriousness of the subject, they discussed.  Our society has a tendency to be sarcastic and “funny” in order to be entertaining but the worth of discussion stems from the exercise itself.  Much like education where subjects should be considered interesting in and of themselves, the journalists and philosophers need the intellectual room to allow ideas to breathe.  

Lastly, such programming would bring us away from the edge of the chasm, the bottom of which is littered with more modern shows and reinforce the need of bigger ideas.  We are drowning in small and insignificant notions and we are the worse for it as a society.  Some would say that are world no longer allows for this and it goes against the prevailing winds of technology and society.  Yet, imagine what would be possible if our leaders, those who cover them and the public demanded more. 

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

…let us remember it is not because a simple lack of civility caused this tragedy…but rather because only a more civil and honest discourse can help us face up to the challenges of our nation, in a way that would make (the victims) proud.
            President Barack Obama at a speech in Tucson, Arizona, 12 January 2011

Last year, Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa, during an address to union members declared, “President Obama, this is your army.  We are ready to march.  Let’s take these sons of bitches out.”  The “sons of bitches” in question were Republicans.  It appears that various union supporters in Michigan have taken this order to heart as it fights (literally) against the recently passed “right-to-work” legislation, which was signed into law by Governor Richard Snyder.  In the aftermath, the Republicans and other right-to-work supporters have been subjected to violence and the threat of more violence.    

As I come from a “union” state, I’m familiar with the rather heavy-handed approach they often use to make their points.  However, in the aftermath of the Michigan legislature’s actions over the last week, the unions in that bastion of unionism have ratcheted it up a notch in their protest.  At the head of this charge was Democratic State Representative Douglas Geiss, who declared that, “there will be blood.  There will be repercussions.”  It is difficult to know where to go from there when the opposition is actually declaring the need for bloodshed.  The hyperbole of the arguments used by union mouthpieces suggests a complete lack of logic and reason and the death throes of an institution.  The fact is, as columnist Charles Krauthammer made perfectly clear, the idea of “right-to-work” is a choice between high wages and high unemployment verses lower unemployment and a wider tax base – the latter something Michigan desperately needs. 

Outside the capital, union mobs increased the tension and the violence against anyone who dares propose a different course than the engrained path of unionism seen and upheld in Michigan for over a century.  The organization, Americans for Progress, attempted to put up a tent as part of a demonstration in favor of the legislation.  As they were nearly finished, a union mob descended upon them.  As the crowd worked themselves up, they began cursing and screaming at the people within and around the tent.  Soon, pushing and shoving ensued as AFP advocates were punched and knocked down while the union mob tore down the tent.  Various threats are easily heard on the tape.  It is not clear where the police were during the incident. 

It is easy to characterize these actions and words as those from a desperate and baseless group.  However, in Michigan, unions have wielded considerable power and enjoy unbridled support from the likes of no less than the president of the United States.  Mr. Obama’s support of these crowds, who in the last two years have perpetrated one violent encounter after another against their opponents, is particularly perplexing when one considers his own words.  After the attacks in Arizona that killed and maimed, most notably Rep. Gabby Giffords, the president was quick to suggest that there must be more civil discourse without the inflammatory and provocative.  He has as often chastised Republicans for their “rancor” but has uttered no condemnation of union aggressiveness.   

One of the things that supposedly holds our democracy apart from the squalors of dictatorship and totalitarianism is the rule of law and the belief in the democratic process.  Whatever is passed and not approved of by the people can be addressed in the following elections.  The tactics of mob violence and intimidation are the tools of bullies and fanatics.   President Obama said our discourse should provide a better place for our children.  Surely, he and the Democratic leadership can begin the process by disowning the methods of their own supporters.

The Importance and Misunderstanding of Voting

Over 120 million people voted last Tuesday as President Barack Obama won his second term.  I have had a great deal of fun speaking with my students on the election and from time to time, my status as a government teacher has also elicited questions from my friends.  Of all the questions and all the remarks I hear from others, two are brought up most often and need to be addressed. 

Remark one – I don’t understand the need for this “electoral college”; we need to get rid of it.  The Electoral College was initially devised as a check on an unpredictable and emotional electorate.  As a way of preventing the people from electing someone horribly unqualified or unsuitable for the position, the Electoral College was created by our Founding Fathers.  Today, it is has developed to serve another purpose.  If the election was strictly one based on population, candidates would focus their efforts in the major population centers only.  Places like Wyoming, Alaska or Nevada, states with low population and/or low population densities, would be ignored.  However, with a race to 270, the three to five electoral votes of some of the smaller states have a greater percentage of voice and influence on an upcoming election. 

Remark two – My single vote does not count/I live in a predominantly blue/red state and I’m of an opposite opinion....There are many types of comments like this that downplays the individual relevance of one’s vote.  This is the completely wrong way to look at voting.  The importance of voting is not based on whether you get what you want or whether your guy wins or not.  It is about having your voice heard.  In a world that increasingly frames things based on the individual, people have developed the wrong idea about the power of voting.  The importance of voting is that you have the right and responsibility to cast your ballot.  Governor Romney lost the election but by voting, I let the Obama administration know that one more person does not agree with his policies and must be considered when setting new policy.  Assuming he truly believes that he is president of “all Americans.” 

The United States and other democracies around the world share the responsibility to vote in a world where this right and duty largely does not exist.  Throughout the world, people struggle to have their voice heard and taken under consideration and increasingly, insecure dictators or quasi-leaders suppress or pervert the will of the people.  At the core of the power to vote is the people’s power to control their government.  That is why some “leaders” subvert the power to vote because they do not recognize the power of the people.  People who refuse to vote or don’t because they feel it does not count must keep this in mind.

 

A Civics Lesson Takes Center Stage

This past Wednesday evening, in Denver, Colorado, President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney met for the first of three presidential debates.  Over the course of an hour and a half, the two men, rather cordially, discussed and debated the important issues of the day.  Viewers, and by all accounts they were plentiful, saw a public discussion to a degree and depth for which typical news coverage does not allow.  For my students, who were tasked with watching the debate, they were able to see a bit of how their government works.  Of course, what I will not mention to my students was my belief that Mr. Romney was outstanding and convincing. 

As pre-arranged, the debate centered on domestic issues, in particular taxes, health care, social security and the national debt.  As likely most would concede, Mr. Romney was persuasive and in control during that exchange.  Conversely, President Obama was hesitant and unsure, too quick to be conciliatory and too willing to accept aspects of his opponent’s points.  My students picked up on this and were quick to point it out.  We discussed at length over the course of the week the different characteristics of the exchange between the two presidential candidates.   

One, my students felt that the exchange was, at times, rude on the part of both men.  However, I was quick to point out that during a debate, it is the moderator’s job to ensure that each man can speak at equal lengths.  The debater must attempt to speak as long as he can and to pontificate and elaborate as much as he can.  His concern cannot be for the other man (or woman).  In this role, Jim Lehrer, an otherwise masterful master of ceremonies for such events since 1976, was off his game.  He decided, at some point, that he preferred the give-and-take the two candidates were engaged in than structure and discipline.  I don’t have a problem with it per se, but many of my students misconstrued that as rudeness.  In explaining the purpose of a debate and the responsibility of a debater, the students felt that it allowed for a great direct conversation between the two with plenty of information enumerated and philosophies explained. 

The students also admitted to be a bit confused over the constant haggling over numbers.  I have to admit, though I’m an intelligent, educated (some would say erudite) man, numbers make me a little tired myself.  My approach is to focus on the philosophies rather than the statistics.  The old adage of there being “lies, damned lies and statistics” cannot be more spot on.  Therefore, I prefer to listen to the paradigm with which the candidates operate under than the numbers they manipulate for their own purposes.   

It is my firm belief that President Obama will come out swinging during the debate on 16 October at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.  It will be moderated by CNN chief political correspondent Candy Crowley and will feature a town hall format over a slew of issues.  It is doubtful that the president will concede as much and many of the issues he has been focused on with regards to his opponent over the last month will resurface – items such as the 47% comment and Mr. Romney’s lack of “economic patriotism.”  However, for one night, Mr. Romney displayed a mastery of the topic (it is within his wheelhouse, so to speak) and joyous attitude (“It’s fun, isn’t it?”).  I hope he can maintain his confidence and control but he will need to show, within the context of a “town hall” debate, that he can connect with the audience.  If he can do that, the campaign could begin to turn permanently. 

There is Still a Pulse for the Opposition

Yesterday, the Supreme Court, in a convoluted 5 to 4 decision, upheld the president’s landmark domestic initiative – the Affordable Care Act.  In doing so, the chief justice, John Roberts, stated that the core part of the act, the individual mandate, was constitutional – not as a mandate but as a tax.  In doing so, the president won the battle over the measure but might have lost the war.  In the Supreme Court’s decision, it might have fired up the forces against the health legislation in the lead up to the general election on 6 November 2012.   

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, forces have marshaled against the law.  The first and most prominent of these forces were the Democrats whose party unilaterally pushed the bill through.  Very few Democrats have mentioned the historic health law since its passage and many who were its most ardent supporters went down in defeat in the 2010 mid-term elections.  As we near the general election, more Democrats have distanced from the president and his policies as a growing number have denounced the health law.  The governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has openly challenged the president’s health law in the face of a state vote rejecting the individual mandate and a populace, who 70% of, disapproves the law.  

Prior to yesterday morning when the president acknowledged the victory he earned from the Supreme Court, it was difficult to find an instance where he championed the health care law to a national audience.  He will often speak on the measure at controlled events but seldom nationally.  It is here that the Republicans and Democrats who oppose the health law could find an opening.  First, the president and his supporters spent much of the lead up to the bill’s passage rejecting the notion that the mandate was a tax.  When the Court ruled the individual mandate constitutional as a tax, it invalidated the administration’s arguments over the last three years.  Even the chief justice’s rational, that it was not the Court’s job to rescue the population from their political decisions, hint at the problematic nature of the law and its mandate – its funding.  As a tax, it is the largest tax increase devised.  It is hard not to make political hay out of this.   

There are large problems with the Court's declaration of the mandate as a tax.  In dissent, Justice Anthony Kennedy suggested the Court did not interpret but rewrote the law with the switch in language.  Furthermore, beyond the difficulties it places upon the administration, it represents a problem as a tax.  Is a tax a tax if it did not originate within the House of Representatives, the only political body the Constitution says can create tax legislation?  At best, it represents a multifarious constitutional labyrinth to navigate before the law can be fully vetted.  This does not include the many other issues that are bound to emerge as the law, which many Democratic leaders confessed they had not read in full, comes into effect.

The biggest silver lining could be the injection of energy and purpose it gives conservatives.  The justices themselves encouraged the reaction by saying, 7 to 2, that the federal government could not punish or threaten states to participate in the program.  As states and activists digest this bit of information, the decision will drive some Democrats, if not to Mr. Romney, then away from President Obama.  The health care law, which Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said would have to go into effect to understand it completely, is so unpopular that had the Supreme Court struck it down, it would have lessen the urgency to vote.  Now, conservatives that have been a bit lukewarm towards Mr. Romney have a renewed motivation to vote this November.

As I’ve said before, Americans often define their freedom and liberties by the amount of choices they have.  The Affordable Care Act takes away many of those choices and puts them in the hands of the government.  Governments in general have difficulties in effectively and efficiently running industries.  Former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater, the senator from Arizona, once said that a government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take it all away.  When deciding on 6 November, it would behoove Americans to remember that.

The Dangers of the Upcoming Mexican Elections

With the approaching Mexican presidential elections, there has been a great deal of turmoil and unpredictability that culminated in recent polls, released and called into question this week.  The polls showed Enrique Peña Nieto of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) in the lead.  However, the left-leaning Party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) and its candidate, former Mexico City mayor Andrés Manuel López Obrador, are only a few points behind.  The ruling party, the National Action Party (PAN) and its candidate, Josefina Vázquez Mota is third.  In the midst of all this jockeying are some important possible consequences to the Mexican elections.

Since the writing of the new Mexican constitution in the 1920s, in the aftermath of the Mexican civil war, only one party existed and the PRI kept a stranglehold over the government and the direction of the country for the subsequent eighty years.  As one might find in one-party states, the PRI was known for horrible corruption, connection to “unsavory” types to say the least and an institutional disregard for the lives and lot of ordinary Mexicans.  In 2000, Vicente Fox became the first non-PRI president.  Over the last twelve years, Mr. Fox and current president, Felipe Calderón, have sought to put in place a series of reforms to change the calcified rapacity that existed under the PRI. 

It would be, potentially, very dangerous for the PRI to return to the presidency in Mexico.  Mr. Nieto has said that his time as the governor of the state of Mexico and its economic success could be segued into Mexico as a country.  He blasted the failed reforms and policies of the PAN but not all is as it appears.  First of all, Mexico’s economy has done quite well over the last twelve years.  Its GDP, GDP growth rate and its GDP per capita are all on the rise.  There is a greater level of true democracy seen in Mexico than at any time in its history.  As for the PRI attacks on the PAN, it is more complicated.  The PRI has maintained a sizeable minority in the Mexican parliament and the majority of Mexican states are run by the PRI.  This has put the formerly authoritarian single-party group in a strong position to obfuscate the government’s plans. 

Of course, the biggest charge levied on the PAN is the violence that has characterized the country over the last couple of years.  Yet, there is something positive to be taken from this.  Even with the horrific tales of violence and mass killings, deaths are down overall.  Additionally, the amount of stories reported and the gun battles that have dotted the countryside suggest it’s a reaction.  Comfortable drug cartels do not make trouble for themselves and the violence suggests that the government is making headway in their efforts.  Having said that, the government needs to press their work because the gang violence has the potential of destroying the many gains Mexico has made since 2000.

What does Mexico have to lose by turning to the PRI?  I imagine there is a small chance that PRI has seen the error of its historical ways.  However, that would require an organizational introspection and reform that is not supported by the evidence.  The violence with drug cartels has forced Mexicans to reconsider the direction of their country and the PAN might suffer as a result.  It does not help that Ms. Mota has received less than lukewarm support from President Calderón and Mr. Fox.  A return of the PRI can lead to a return to the previous way of doing things in Mexico.  That could make the cartel violence pale in comparison.   

At the turn of the 20^th-century, the United States went through a progressive period where institutional corruption and illegality were combated.  Movements spanning the spectrum attacked one societal, industrial and governmental ill after another.  Mexico needs its own progressive movement and the leadership with the courage to confront those bringing the country down.  The PRI has not shown a capacity to do this.  Whether the PAN or PRD can, only time will tell. 

To Filibuster or Not to Filibuster

In an article for the Boston Globe, Joshua Green railed against the filibuster, a congressional procedural tactic of the minority party to prevent something coming up for a vote.  In his article, well written and occasionally humorous, Mr. Green details the many bills and measures that would have been passed were it not for the dreaded filibuster.  He further hammered the point that the Republicans have filibustered proposed legislation over 85 times.  However, his article is not entirely partisan and instead rests on the very nature of a filibuster.  He even quotes a University of Miami political professor (I normally call them pundits) who declared Congress was not functional any longer.  Here is a little history lesson – there has not been many moments in history when Congress operated the way Mr. Green romanticized it did. 

There are a couple of things to take from this article.  One, Congress was never meant to be a well-oiled, highly efficient body capable and often producing hundreds of laws a session.  It is designed to be cumbersome, time consuming and dysfunctional.  The House of Representatives was originally conceived as the people’s house, in much the same way as the House of Commons within the British Parliament was designed to represent the great unwashed, the hoi polloi if you will.  Representatives were given only two year terms.  This does two things.  One, it makes representatives more panicky and more likely to make decisions in a knee jerk response to immediately mollify their constituents.  Second, it allows the public to more quickly vote out or re-elect a representative, based on their legislative actions.  However, any political body that is directly answerable to the public must be counter-balanced, as it were.  Here is where the Senate comes in.

The Senate, prior to 1916, was not elected by the people but rather by the representatives of his/her state.  Senators serve six year terms and as such, are much more deliberate and exacting in their legislative output.  This was meant as a check on the sometimes impulsive nature of the Lower House.  The Senate, a more powerful form of the British House of Lords, was meant to prevent the government from going into directions that, upon further reflection, it would prefer not to go.  To do this, one thing that is missing from the Senate that is prominent in the House is the powerful Rules Committee.  In the House, the Rules Committee set up the guidelines of how a bill is argued, including how long debates will last.  The Senate does not have this committee in the way it is seen in the House.  Without the power of the House committee, the Senate can not easily put the brakes on the consideration of a bill.

The filibuster requires the majority party to have at least sixty votes to end the stalling technique.  This is called a cloture vote.  If the majority party can muster the votes, it can break the filibuster.  Mr. Green bemoaned all the things that did not happen because of an obdurate Republican minority in the Senate.  However, we are talking about things that had barely a majority support or, otherwise, a cloture vote would end the delay.  It also suggests that some of the opposition to much of what was filibustered was comprised of bi-partisan support, given the margin of defeat.  While we have a winner-take-all system in our government, we also fear the potential of a powerful majority.  

Many people take swipes at our Congress.  Mostly, it is against individual members of Congress, not necessarily their own elected members or the Congress as a whole.  Critics cry about the ineffectiveness of the Congress and often, advocates will champion a sad-sack case as representative of the damage being caused.  Yet, they miss the point all together.  Not only are the government in general and the Congress in particular not designed for the needs of the individual (it is responsible for the well-being of the whole), it is also not designed to blithely and thoughtlessly succumb to reactionary pressure.  To change the government or, worse, change the Constitution is a serious thing and must only be embarked upon after a most deliberate consideration.  It is the way Congress was meant to be.

To see the article referred to in this article, check out:

bostonglobe.com/opinion/2012/05/17/taking-word/QrHaNvodpWOtRXy6bTKZ3M/story.html

The Court Takes on the Arizona Immigration Law

Last week, the Court heard arguments regarding the controversial Arizona immigration law that required people in Arizona, upon police instructions, to show proof of residency.  The case has political implications as well.  If the Court rules in favor of the law, it could be the second major defeat of an Obama administration measure (assuming the health care measure also loses in the Court).  If the Court rules against the law, it could force Mitt Romney to be more vocal about the need for comprehensive and federal-dedicated measures to stop the flow of illegal immigrants at a time when he is trying to tone down the rhetoric to win over more Hispanic votes.  However, as usual, these conversations have deeper complexities that I would like to discuss. 

I’m not too far removed from the old country myself and as a historian, I’m intensely interested in immigration history.  Therefore, I think I’m speaking from a certain level of sympathy and understanding.  Additionally, our struggles with immigration (illegal or otherwise) are also being experienced throughout Europe as well.  If anything, the difficulties in countries like Germany shadow the U.S. struggles.  However, states like Arizona are taking a harder line, themselves hardened by years of problems stemming from the large presence of Latin American immigrants.

I have a bit of a different take on the issue.  I spent seven years teaching in a predominantly Mexican-American school.  From time to time, we discussed immigration.  My students were torn – those whose family entered the country legally were miffed at having waited the time required, paid the money ordered, dotted the I’s and crossed the T’s and arrived here legitimately.  They were irritated that illegal aliens had foregone all of that and broke the law in their first step into their new country. 

 

However, all that said, it might be a moot point and that too might affect the election.  The Pew Institute (www.pewresearch.org) released some startling information about the flow of Mexican and Latin American immigrants into the United States.  The Institute said that Mexicans are leaving more than entering into the United States due to a variety of reasons; among these are the recent economic issues and stricter anti-illegal immigration measures.  However, things are transpiring in Mexico that is also affecting the number.  First, the Mexican economy is doing quite well, certainly growing at a larger rate over the last five years than what is seen in the U.S.  From 1980 to 2010, the Mexican per capita gross domestic product has risen 22%.  A sign of a growing prosperity (in any country, let alone Mexico) is that the fertility rate has dropped dramatically.  In 1970, the rate was 7.3 per woman – compared to 2.4 in 2009.   

The Pew Institute went further in suggesting we will never see the numbers of Mexicans coming across the southern border like we have in the past.  Yet, it still leaves a perplexing question.  What should we do with future and current illegal immigrants?  During President Bush’s first term, he suggested the concept of an amnesty program and while he was torched by Republicans, the Democrats said nothing in support of a plan they have suggested since.  Others have suggested the punitive measure of hunting down and deporting illegal immigrations as President Dwight D. Eisenhower did in the aftermath of the bracero program after World War II.  That plans sounds like it would cause more problems than it would fix.   

However, what can be done, in the course of official business, is to ask people to show their identification.  I’ve traveled a bit and in every country I’ve been to, I’ve understand that I must show identification upon request by officials, including police.  To suggest that such a program would be inherently racist and lead to profiling, is assuming that America’s police and government officials are inherently corrupt and ambivalent to their obligations and duties.  It must be a hard way to go through life. 

The Court Takes Center Stage

As a government teacher, among other subjects, there is nothing like discussing and analyzing Supreme Court decisions. For my students, it is a no brainer because the Court and its cases represent the most controversial issues of its day. How can that not grab their attention and bring them in? Last week, the Court heard The Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida, et. al. and in doing so, stepped into one of the most contentious issues of the last decade. My students have opinions but they are their parents’ opinions. However, they are beginning to learn that they are not just watching a court case but a battle over the meaning and intent of our Constitution and our Founding Fathers.

As I’ve mentioned before, I give no hint to my political persuasion in front of my classroom but on this blog, I can flex my ideological muscles a bit. A few years ago, my school hosted some German students as part of a two week home exchange. This was around the time of the initial debate over what would be the Affordable Care Act, passed in the waning hours of 2009. These German students were sharp and very politically aware and since I was the history/government teacher, their teacher asked me to visit with the group to discuss the matter and explain the various sides of the issue. In particular, the teacher, who knew me and knew my attitudes, wanted her students to understand the opposition to the then-bill. Since they came from a country that accepts the notion of nationalized health care as a matter of course, they were confused about the objections.

When the Court heard arguments from the Solicitor General over the idea of the individual mandate, the justices were rather rapid-fire in their questions. The reason for so much attention to the idea that all Americans would be mandated to buy insurance is that it infringes upon a basic notion Americans have had since its inception. I told the German students that Americans have often defined freedom by the amount of choices they have. Throughout our history, we have balked at mandates, economic and otherwise. It dates back to the British mandating taxes, adherence to commerce restrictions and fealty to the Crown. I further explained that any time the government proposes taking choices from Americans, it has, as Justice Anthony Kennedy said last week, a heavy burden of justification. It is here where the law could meet its Waterloo.

When the Germans asked about those that cannot afford health care or insurance, I re-emphasized the point that programs exist for those individuals but these programs need a greater responsiveness by the government and more financial commitment. It was important that they understood that objection to the president’s plan did not equate to a heartlessness towards those who cannot afford health insurance, no matter the attempts, then and now, of the program’s supporters to propagate.

The president recently questioned the Court’s right to rule his plan unconstitutional and it does nothing to serve his cause. It also furthers the perception that he considers himself a bit above the process and the Constitution. The Constitution was not written to empower the federal government. It was written to limit the federal government. It is my assessment that the Affordable Care Act is, at least partially, unconstitutional. The Court will render its opinion by early June.

The Legacy of a Prominent Man

If you can stomach a swim through the major news networks, check out the big boys and consider what you have observed. News is no longer such but rather entertainment. There is not a single aspect of the news that is not infiltrated by and consumed with the entertainment factor. This includes everything from fancy graphics to theme songs to dramatic segment titles. However, within this sea of noise is one network that has managed, mostly, to avoid the entertainment element in news. And, behind this network for its entire history, one man has run it with dignity and focus. The network is C-SPAN and the man is its CEO (who has recently retired) Brian Lamb.

Famed cultural critic Neil Postman once discussed the nature of television news and how the paradigm by which news networks present was (and is) based on entertainment. It trivializes the concept of news and challenges the definition of what should be classified as news. The 24-hour news networks further distort what constitutes news and the appropriate way in which to present the same. Today, one can watch the news and observe the screaming, over-gesticulating anchors and wonder where the adults are. It is little wonder that fewer people watch the news on television because the viewers question the worth of what is being presented.

In the late 1970s, former political operative Brian Lamb proposed a network that would broadcast live coverage of House and Senate deliberations. What began as a peek behind the legislative curtain of the Congress has expanded over the years to include committee hearings, congressional testimony, British parliamentary proceedings and political and cultural interviews. The Sunday morning news show on C-SPAN includes a host with a newspaper, a highlighter and a string of callers posing questions. However, nothing is focused on the presenter and technology is non-existence. Brian Lamb conducted that Sunday morning show for decades and recently, shifted to interviews of authors and political figures and never made the conversation about himself or the presentation but solely about the subject.

Over the decades, Mr. Lamb has created a network that defies the trend and instead of making itself the story, simply points the lens at the news-makers and allows the viewer to determine their own opinion. No other network operates with such respect and deference to the viewers’ intelligence. As the shrill and antics of the other networks increase as their numbers dwindle, C-SPAN continues to provide the service for which all Americans should be thankful. As Brian Lamb steps down as CEO of C-SPAN, he leaves a legacy that will be compared to the news anchors and figures of days gone by and in the final analysis, viewers will see his greatness while further understanding the baseness and vacuous nature of those who purport to carry on the journalistic tradition.

Abusing the Bully Pulpit

Teaching is more difficult than learning because what teaching calls for is this: to let learn. The real teacher, in fact, lets nothing else be learned than learning. His conduct, therefore, often produces the impression that we properly learn nothing from him, if by “learning” we now suddenly understand merely the procurement of useful information.
Martin Heidegger - Was heisst Denken

When I was in college, I attended a government class and the teacher, one who had taught at my little directional school long enough to earn tenure, told the class that conservatives were suspicious of the people and used government to control them and liberals were more trusting of individuals. At the time, I was a bit of a political neophyte but I was learned enough to know this man was horribly mistaken and likely purposefully so. Therefore, to the groan of some of my classmates (it is so cool to make an entire class moan or hush). I suggested he had it backwards. Conservative political philosophy demands that government back off the individual – as Thomas Jefferson said, the government which governs best, governs least. The teacher maintained his position and I was left with two prevailing thoughts; one, this man offered a disservice to government education and two, I would never project my own political opinions in my classroom.

I’ve taught for sixteen years and I’ve been quite proud of the fact that I’ve never projected a personal opinion that would allow students to ascertain my political beliefs. Upon the graduation of one student whom I taught three years in a row, she came by my room to thank me and said, “You know, in three years, I cannot figure you out politically.” I told her if she wanted to know badly enough, in a couple of years, I would buy her a beer and tell her all about it. Sadly, many in my profession see the lectern as a bully pulpit. I find it outrageous and distasteful anytime I hear a teacher express political viewpoints as facts in front of students still developing their own ideas. As a conservative, I’m particularly annoyed that many tend to be liberals (though there are a number from my side of the political spectrum just as guilty).

I teach history and government – two subjects that are probably the most susceptible to the opining of biased professors and teachers. My role in both classes is to allow the students to pontificate, elaborate, explore their ideas and solidify their belief system. I play the role of devil’s advocate. Whether a student agrees or disagrees with my own personal system, I challenge everything they say and push them to develop their rationale. As the adult in the room, I should not need my opinions validated by how many of my students agree with me. I’m not that insecure.

In my government class, I use Supreme Court cases to engender arguments among my students, prodded along by me. I require, in addition to their personal point of view on a particular subject, that they provide constitutional proof for their argument. One might suggest this is leading the students in one direction or another but in our society, its laws governed as they are by the Constitution, my students need to know how to express their thoughts from a constitutional point of view. In history, I challenge my students to consider divergent view points on historical issues. There are some great books that provide primary sources that allow students to consider more than one perspective. Again, the goal is to have the students explore learning and not to learn information through me.

In the classroom, the teacher’s role is to allow the student to pursue knowledge, not to have it filtered through the opinions of the instructor. This year, my seniors will continue to ask me, “Can we know now your political opinion?” I will continue to resist and in doing so, perhaps my students will be allowed to learn.

And In This Corner...

As summer folds into fall, our thoughts turn towards football, playoff baseball, cooler temperatures and occasionally, primary elections. The 2012 general election promises to be an interesting one. It is unlikely that someone within the Democrat Party will challenge President Obama as happened to President Jimmy Carter in 1980 when the late Senator Ted Kennedy entered the primary fray. So, in the interest of drama and a competition of ideas prior to the main event, let’s consider the men and women who seek the Republican nomination for the highest office in the land. Not mentioned will include the fringe candidates, exemplified by the likes of Jimmy McMillan representing the Rent Is Too Damn High Party – but, we appreciate the interjection of character into the mix.

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) – George Will of the Washington Post said that the biggest question to be directed towards Ms. Bachmann is, if one of her advisors has not been fired for giving her false information that she then uttered throughout the campaign trail, why not? It is difficult to see her regaining any momentum now that Governor Perry, her ideological though more polished doppelganger, is in the race.

Herman Cain – He seems like a nice guy and with regards to the economy, he makes a great deal of sense but I imagine that many offices have pools as to when exactly he is exiting the race.

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich – Easily one of the more articulate and informative people in the race but after so long away from the political scene and with enough personal issues to stun a mastodon, it is difficult seeing him stick around through the fall.

Former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman – It has been said that former ambassador Huntsman is the Republican for self-hating Republicans. And, it is mentioned by the media, typically the left-leaning media that a centrist is what the Republicans need if they want to be elected. Personally, I find him quite engaging but the GOP tried a centrist with Senator John McCain and it did not work. Therefore, Mr. Huntsman will likely be gone by the end of the fall if not sooner.

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) – No matter the level of commitment Rep. Paul’s followers have, his appeal is too limited to move beyond. He complains often about the lack of media coverage. While that may not help, neither will more television time. He has a long history of saying some rather peculiar things. He has suggested he might not be that interested in the job but he will stick around to drive the debate.

Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) – No one candidate has entered the race with such anticipation and impact as Governor Perry. However, the national stage might, ultimately, prove too bright for him. Despite his record in Texas, a state where the governor does not have much power, it will not be enough to win the nomination.

Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney – It will be Mr. Romney that will emerge as the Republican candidate for 2012 general election. I’m not sure if he is the right choice for the Republicans to win. He is milquetoast and is as likely to fill people with ennui than political inspiration. He does not approach the medical care program in Massachusetts the right way. He should embrace it as an example of states being the laboratories of democracy and this was an example of something that did not work. He should simply say that and move on. Other Republicans will not let it go, however, which could doom his run.

Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum – If you know that he is running for president, it is a minor victory for his campaign. If he is not in the middle of a concession speech as I write this, I will be surprised.

And what about the 500 pound, albeit beautiful, gorilla in the room? Being president might be a pay cut for Sarah Palin. As it is, her ship may have sailed as she likely knows it.