Category Archives: Politics

economy as cancer

Every once in awhile, Tom Friedman gets one right. This is one: “It’s Too Late for Later” [16 December 2007], his posting from the climate conference in Bali. He writes:

[T]oday’s global economy has become like a monster truck with the gas pedal stuck, and we’ve lost the key — so no one can stop it from wiping out more and more of the natural world….

His pessimism — that we cannot stop the madness — would be countered by Paul Krugman’s assertion that “institutions, norms, and the political environment” are capable of driving the economy [The Conscience of a Liberal, p. 8 (2007)], contrary to the neo-con (and Marxist! There’s a startling convergence.) belief that the economy is all that matters and that the market must be untouched by politics.

It seems more and more clear that the concept of an ever-expanding economy — growth as the only imperative — is a form of cancer. Whatever the specific economic issues of global political regimes may be, they link back to that fundamental concept, which is not sustainable. Proposals for renewable energy and equitable taxation point toward a new fundamental principle: sustainability.

the filibuster tool

All it takes is one Senator — ONE — to filibuster. It takes sixty — 60 — to stop a filibuster. In the bad old days of anti-civil rights filibusters, Senators once held up all Senate business for 57 days, trying to stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act. {alt url: }

Harry Reid had cots brought into the Senate for an all-night session in July when the Republicans started to filibuster the Iraq pullout bill, but he caved when the first cloture vote was lost. Where was the Democratic leadership? Why didn’t they force the Republicans to really filibuster and expose them the way the Civil Rights Dems exposed the racists in 1964?

When John Kerry blew off even being present to vote on the FISA bill, he showed how little the political process of debate — and standing up for what he believes — means to him. He didn’t have to be the one who filibustered the FISA bill, but the fact that none of the Democrats did is atrocious. The excuse, “His vote wouldn’t make a difference,” is not the point. “His voice wouldn’t have swayed anyone” — which is a pathetic situation — is not the point. The point of being a Senator defending Constitutional protection of speech is just that — to defend, to be there, to speak out. He failed.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
addendum: similar views on the filibuster were expressed in a post on DailyKos: The Filibuster: now painless and more convenient than ever!, 20 September 2007. The next day, a NY Times editorial, In Search of a Congress, said:

We support the filibuster as the only way to ensure a minority in the Senate can be heard. When the cloture votes failed this week, the Democrats should have let the Republicans filibuster. Democratic leaders think that’s too risky, since Congress could look like it’s not doing anything. But it’s not doing a lot now.

The country needs a lot more debate about what must be done to contain Iraq’s chaos and restore civil liberties sacrificed to Mr. Bush’s declared war on terrorism.

Kerry in the straddle again

A friend sent me a recent message from John Kerry’s email list, wherein Kerry shouts about the Republicans blocking a vote on Sen. Jim Webb’s proposal for a maximum deployment and minimum home leave time for troops in Iraq. I compared that message with Kerry’s vote against an earlier similar proposal. Another example of Kerry on both sides of the issue. Take a look:

FROM KERRY EMAIL:

From: info@johnkerry.cp20.com [mailto:info@johnkerry.cp20.com] On Behalf Of
John Kerry
Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:13 PM
To: …
Subject: Just Off the Senate Floor

My colleague Jim Webb from Virginia (Jim’s a Marine – and I say “is” because you’re a Marine until the day you die, and the Senate’s a hell of a lot better to have this Marine here) – Jim introduced an amendment that set 12 months as the maximum time soldiers could be deployed in Iraq, and also set a minimum time for them to be home in the States (so they couldn’t just get rotated back out).

Any one who has ever worn the uniform of our country knows what a difference that time at home makes. But of course the “operational tempo” has had to be upped so high to carry out President Bush’s escalation that the Army has had to extend tours and cut leave short. We’re trying to protect our soldiers by making sure that ends.

But the Republicans won’t even let it come to a vote. They’d rather side with the President and the President’s Iraq policy than give our soldiers the treatment they deserve. It’s outrageous.

===================
FROM CONGRESSIONAL VOTE:

October 17, 2003-Fiscal 2004 Supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan-Congressional Approval-S1689. Kerry voted to table an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds in the supplemental bill for the involuntary deployment overseas for Operation Iraqi Freedom of members of the National Guard and reserves who had been involuntarily deployed for six months or more during the past six years. Agreed to 82-15, R 49-0, D 33-14, I 0-1.

====================
Yes, it’s outrageous.
————————————
[also posted on:
http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7925
and
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stacy-bannerman/support-the-troops-my-a_b_56475.html ]

Kerry disappoints in Natick

John Kerry’s appearance in Natick, MA, sponsored by the Democratic Town Committee (16 June 2007), was an eye-opener into the mediocrity that passes for leadership in America. As the senator walked on the stage, I found myself feeling compassionate. Except for the hairdo, he’s not imposing at all, and he displayed the typical body language of someone feeling nervous and out of place; in the old days, he might have been described as a sad sack.

Kerry was introduced by the Committee Chair as having “made a mistake” when he voted in 2002 to authorize Bush/Cheney to use military force against Iraq. The excuse for this “mistake” is that he was “misled by lies and deceptions.” I have already criticized this notion of mistake and apology. What was interesting yesterday was that the senator depended on his host to make the pitch, apparently hoping to avoid having to talk about it himself. This introduction dissipated my compassion.

The most revealing aspect of Kerry’s presentation was that he repeatedly forgot his “mistake” and “excuse.” For example, he said, “We liberated Iraq”; how can that be if that the invasion was based on lies and deceptions? He said, “Our troops have done their job”; how can that be if the “job” was a lie and a deception? In a number of other instances, Kerry’s comments indicated he is committed to the continuing presence of American military in Iraq. He argued for a “smart war,” and suggested specific troop deployments that would allow American occupation to go forward with less danger to the troops. This latter comment provoked cries of outrage from the audience, including “There is no ‘smart’ war,” and “We don’t want any war,” and “Humanity is committing suicide with war.”

Kerry actually offers two competing explanations for his 2002 vote. One is the “mistake” excuse. That one is unconvincing. Many millions of Americans, including other senators who voted against the authorization of force, knew then what we know now about the lies and deceptions. Kerry can’t pretend he didn’t know what Senator Kennedy knew and what Senator Graham insisted upon: the National Intelligence Estimate Report showed the lies and deceptions. Kerry also can’t hide what he did in relation to his vote, seeking pollster guidance about how his vote would affect his status as a presidential candidate. Kerry’s primary opponent, Ed O’Reilly, who was in the audience yesterday, is challenging Kerry’s vote as not a mistake, but a calculated move.

Kerry offers a second, competing explanation for his vote in 2002: he says the text of the authorization resolution contained language about negotiation, and that his vote in favor of the use of force was also a vote to negotiate first. This explanation completely contradicts the notion of a “mistake,” by suggesting that Kerry was really in support of the actual authorization resolution after all. Which is it? Mistake or intentional participation in the Bush/Cheney scenario? It can’t be both.

As far as I can tell, Kerry is still making mistakes. He referred to “a lack of understanding of what is at stake,” but he doesn’t seem to understand that himself. He spoke of “how important it is to have the moral high ground,” but the only thing he is doing in that way is his attempt to avoid the deep stain of his 2002 vote to allow the invasion. And that isn’t working.

My guess, after sitting through the whole Natick event, is that Kerry is a militarist and an interventionist and that he will continue to support an American military approach to the mid-east (and probably elsewhere), while obfuscating his position in an effort to retain his seat as a senator from Massachusetts. The reactions of the audience at Natick show that many people are seeing through the obfuscation and are ready for a new senator.

Pelosi for President – Now

I have decided impeachment is too slow. Deserved, certainly, but too slow. Resignation is faster. I call upon Bush and Cheney to resign.
Under a parliamentary system, we could call for elections, without waiting for a prescribed term of office to end. We would not need impeachment, because we would have the vote. If we had a Japanese system of morality, and our leaders were warriors, they would commit seppuku. But they aren’t warriors. They only contrive to get others to fight, and even in this have no honor, for they rely on deception and lies.

We can’t call elections and our leaders are not worthy of ritual suicide. We do have freedom of speech, and enough to know that these two have done far worse than what others have done to face impeachment and resignation. Bush and Cheney should resign. Their absences would make Nancy Pelosi President, under the rules of presidential succession.
[submitted to http://www.bluemassgroup.com]

Kerry’s mistake & apology

John Kerry said, “I accept my share of the responsibility” for the Iraq invasion. Unfortunately, this is one of those times when “I’m sorry” isn’t good enough. The consequences of Kerry’s 2002 vote to give Bush a blank check to invade Iraq include thousands of deaths and untold damage to American interests. Many of us “knew then what we know now” and we weren’t on the Intelligence Committee.

Kerry’s 2002 vote was followed by his concession in 2004, where he kept $15m in his bank rather than spend it to challenge the shady election results in Ohio.

If Kerry wants to make amends, he should do as Ed O’Reilly suggests, and turn over the $15m to help families of veterans of this war. Then I might forgive him.

============
After I posted this comment on the pro-Kerry blog, The Democratic Daily, the person who had posted about Ed O’Reilly’s challenge responded with an assertion that “Evidently neither Mr. O’Reilly or you understand that the FEC would not count that as a valid use for the money left his campaign war chest.”

I replied: “To the contrary, FEC rules explicitly state that campaign funds may be used for donations to charities. See, e.g., FEC Advisory Opinion 1999-34: ‘The Act provides that amounts “received by a candidate as contributions that are in excess of any amount necessary to defray his expenditures . . . may be contributed to any organization described in section 170(c) of title 26,” except that such amounts may not be converted by any person to any personal use. 2 U.S.C. §439a; 11 CFR 113.2(b)
and (d).’ The law permits Kerry to donate his unused campaign funds to charitable organizations helping Iraq war veterans.”

Another poster called me a “moron” and a “dumb ass” and compared me to Soviet “apparatchiks.” I responded: “What happened to the guidelines for “civil conversation” on this blog?”

See the whole exchange: http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5847
——————
The debate goes on [all at http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=5847]:

Pamela Leavey says, “If you read the guidelines it also says that “Bashing or attacking members of The Democratic Daily or Democratic leaders in office or candidates will not be tolerated.”

My posts are discussing Kerry’s record in reasonable language. I think that’s not the same as “bashing or attacking.” Are you saying Kerry’s supporters now join the Bushies and say that criticism is an “attack,” that asking questions is “bashing”?! In a way, that wouldn’t be so surprising, since Kerry is trying the “I’m responsible” defense that Gonzales also wants to use, as if taking responsibility is the end of the story instead of the start.
===========

Donnie McDaniel asks, “Are you a part of that campaign?”

Indeed, I am. No reason to hide that! Does being part of the campaign mean I can’t express my opinion?! Another strange surprise from this Kerry blog.

As for your threats, including “I will … go postal,” and, “The Katrinacrat [whatever that is] will tear you a new one” and your further comment, “I got my eye on … you,” it seems to me you really need to reread this site’s guidelines: Your last couple sentences could imply “advocating violence toward others.” Read the fine print. It’s there.
————————–

Symbolic resolutions are real

The Greenfield Recorder reports (17 May 2007) that the Greenfield, Massachusetts, Town Council voted 8 to 3 against a resolution asking Congress to start impeachment proceedings against Bush and Cheney for a variety of Constitutional and human rights violations. The President of the Council is quoted as saying, “this is a symbolic resolution” and that the Council has “more important issues to deal with, like the budget.”

What the Council President fails to understand is that a symbolic resolution has real significance, especially, in this case, regarding the budget. The Bush/Cheney invasion of Iraq has cost Greenfield, MA $24,200,000 as of 26 February 2007, according to figures compiled by the National Priorities Project, from Congressional, Defense Department, and IRS data.

Neither the Town Council of Greenfield nor any other municipal government has legal authority to stop the fiscal and human hemorrhaging caused by the invasion. But every official symbolic vote against this devastation and in favor of impeaching the leaders responsible for it has significant political impact. The Greenfield Council has missed an opportunity to call for an end to the siphoning of money and lives away from real local needs to finance the Bush/Cheney regime fantasies of world domination.

Let’s get realistic about law

Harvard Law Prof. Charles Fried, who testified to the Senate in support of both Roberts and Alito Supreme Court nominations, expresses alarm at the Court’s recent coerced pregnancy decision. (I call it by its positive name, rather than the negative ‘anti-abortion.’)

There’s nothing new about Fried’s analysis. He relies on an old Harvardian penchant to reify formal legal doctrine and ignore or deny the unique effects of individual judges. This is undoubtedly what he believed when he answered Senator Feinstein’s question “whether I thought a Justice Roberts would vote to overrule Roe v. Wade.”

Prof. Fried recalls he told the Senator, “I thought he would not, at least not in its later, less absolute version… which protected against governments imposing an ‘undue burden’ on a woman’s right to choose abortion before the fetus’s viability. I told Senator Feinstein that the formulation, and the principles behind it, had become so deeply rooted … that its abandonment would produce … violent unsettling of the law….” Fried adds, “The next year, when I testified in support of Samuel Alito, Senator Feinstein asked me the same question. I gave the same answer.”

Now, in a New York Times Op-Ed piece, 26 April 2007, Fried says he’s worried. But he focuses his critique on Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, not on Roberts or Alito who were in that majority. “Kennedy,” says Fried, “fails to come to grips with his own jurisprudence” and “was not quite willing to embrace his own conclusion.” This is disingenuous. Fried wants Kennedy, widely regarded as the “swing vote” on the court, to save the law from “violent unsettling.” He fails to acknowledge that the addition of Roberts and Alito to the court is precisely what created the possibility of a majority to support Kennedy’s opinion. And in this, he exposes the naiveté of the notion that any law has a life of its own beyond the predilections of judges.

The notion that judges are impersonal actors may sustain popular belief in legal order, but it is far from what a scholar should enunciate to a Senator trying to predict what a potential Justice will do. The Senator deserves to hear what Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1918: “for legal purposes a right is only the hypostasis of a prophecy — the imagination of a substance…” [Harvard Law Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Nov., 1918), p. 42]. There are no rights that enforce themselves. There are no rights that do not involve interpretation. There are no judicial decisions about rights that do not turn on how judges view the facts of a particular case.

Senator Feinstein should not have been encouraged to believe she could set aside her concerns about Roe v. Wade. She should have been told there is no law “so deeply rooted” it may not be overturned. She was already suspicious that these particular nominees might do so. Her caution should have been encouraged, not dismissed.

Fried says the recent decision doesn’t change his mind about the stability of Roe v. Wade, “because the procedure that was banned, intact dilation and extraction, is too rarely used and its importance too dubious to make much difference.”. This is an example of de minimis non curat lex: the law does not care about trivial things. “Too rare” and “too dubious” means that women whose pregnancies are mandated (because the procedure is banned) are too few in number and their circumstances not sufficiently significant (to the law?). They don’t count, so to speak.

“Still,” Fried says, “this most recent decision is disturbing….” He explains that, aside from Kennedy’s failure to live up to his own jurisprudence (whatever that means in a theory of reified, disembodied law), the “more far-reaching reason” he is disturbed is that there are lots more decisions up for grabs. Roe v. Wade is only one of many cases the Court majority may re-address. He is especially afraid the slew of legally “incoherent” decisions determined by the previous swing justice, Sandra O’Connor, will become targets for the Court to “eliminate … confusion and restore principle” (is this what the new majority is doing?), and “the cry will go up that the court is simply reflecting its changed political complexion, not reasoning carefully and promoting stability and clarity in the law. And last week’s decision will lend plausibility to that charge.”

What about that decision will “lend plausibility” to the charge of political bias? Is it really Kennedy’s failure “to come to grips with his own jurisprudence”? Or is it the presence on the bench of two more right wing justices about whom Fried counseled, “Don’t Worry”? The wake-up call should be to those who believe in a magical law that lives by its own roots. This is a fairy tale. We must come to grips with such naive jurisprudence.

Fried complains, “Kennedy… suggested that perhaps as applied in a particular case in which there was an increased health risk the ban might be unconstitutional after all,” and asks, “What can that mean?” Well, the most important thing it can mean is that the swing justice may be willing to swing again, moving the majority to the other side in some future case. We are lucky Kennedy “was not quite willing to embrace his own conclusion.” I suspect Prof. Fried may be wishing he had not embraced his own conclusion at the Senate hearings. It seems that “violent unsettling of the law” is what we’re in for (in more than one venue) under the current regime.

Blood Politics

The March 3, 2007, special election vote by the Cherokee Nation to remove citizenship from intermarried whites and descendants of freed African slaves has raised renewed examination of “blood politics.” As columnist Steve Newcomb points out in Indian Country Today, “The Cherokee Nation has received a great deal of heated criticism for its decision to eject the black freedman from their national rolls.” In a related column, Professor Eric Cheyfitz notes that “Cherokee Nation Principal Chief Chad Smith invoked the criteria of ‘blood’ as that which defines the boundaries of Indian nations. And yet in the same explanation, Smith denied the charge of racism….”

Some observers correlate American Indian citizenship disputes with struggles over resources, especially casino revenues. Whatever the motivations, identity politics is visible well beyond an American Indian context, in a variety of situations around the world. The Cherokee vote is an opportunity to look at assumptions behind notions of “race.”

The basic irony of racial politics in the modern world is that blood purity myths are sustained among mixed-blood peoples. The reality today is that humanity is a mixed-blood species. Race politics is a lie told within this truth.

Take a look at some blood myths within the American context:

1. Black blood, the blood of the slaves imported from Africa, is very strong; a few drops are sufficient to make someone black. The “octoroons” of American slavery are an example of the mythical power of black blood: one-eighth black blood overcame seven-eighths white blood. This kind of thinking was very useful to white male slave-owners, who could increase their slave property by having intercourse with their female slaves. The labor-pains of these women produced more slaves to labor for the master.

2. Red blood, the blood of Indigenous Peoples in the Americas, is comparatively weak in relation to white; a single dose of white blood was sufficient to make someone a “half-breed”; one more dose produced the one-fourth blood-quantum that became a common federal definition of Indian identity. The 1887 Dawes Allotment Act used this standard to dismember the Cherokee Nation and remove land from Cherokee control.

3. White blood is perhaps the most mythical of all; its purity and strength, though powerful in relation to “red” blood, are vulnerable to virtually all others. This was the reasoning behind anti-miscegenation laws criminalizing interracial dating and marriage nearly into the 21st century. (In a strange variation on color, the rarest form of white blood is blue blood, a type of divine origin preserved among the nobility; it is so weak it has to be protected against mixture with non-noble whites.)

Blood myths parade as biology, but they are ideologies wrapped in the language of genetics. Racism is a type of politics that pretends to be a part of nature. Whether in Bosnia or the Cherokee Nation, under colonialism or a slave regime, in domestic or international arenas, race politics is the same. Mixed-blood humanity is burdened with racial metaphysics.

In a 1909 naturalization case [In Re Halladjian, 174 Federal Reporter 834], a federal court admitted four Armenians to United States citizenship, over an objection of the federal government that the petitioners were not “white.” The judge’s reasoning, based on extensive analysis of history and statutes, is still startling, almost a century later:

We find, then, that there is no European or white race, as the United States contends, and no Asiatic or yellow race which includes substantially all the people of Asia; that the mixture of races in western Asia for the last 25 centuries raises doubt if its individual inhabitants can be classified by race…. We find, further, that the word “white” has generally been used in the federal and in the state statutes, in the publications of the United States, and in its classification of its inhabitants, to include all persons not otherwise classified…. [845]

The judge saw white privilege as it is: an historical construct, a catchall category rooted in politics, not biology. Further, in response to the government’s argument that “white” referred to “the prevailing ideals, standards, and aspirations of the people of Europe,” [837] the judge stated:

… a reasonable modesty may well remind Europeans that the origin of their letters was in Phoenicia, the origin of much of their art in Egypt, that Asia Minor claimed, at least, the birthplace of the first great European poet, and that the Christian religion, which most Europeans believe to have influenced their civilization and ideals, was born in Palestine. [840]

Imagine how much less conflict we would see today if this “reasonable modesty” were borne in mind! We would have to acknowledge that “race” and “blood quantum” are tools for oppression, with no redeeming social value, for the Cherokee Nation or any other nation or people.

****
I wrote an earlier version of some of these thoughts for Interracial Voice, in response to the O.J. Simpson case: O.J.’s Blood

Commie Rove?

I very seldom read the Financial Times, but I snapped up the March 22, 2007, issue when I saw the front page photo of Karl Rove under the caption “Rove Subpoena.”
Karl Rove with book

Shades of Watergate! Maybe justice is about to strike at the White House. I wanted this souvenir. The photo shows Rove stepping down an airplane gangplank, smiling, his hair tousled by the wind, and carrying a book, the title plainly visible: “Khrushchev’s Cold War: The Inside Story of an American Adversary.” Wow! Why isn’t right-wing radio drooling over this? The president’s “senior political adviser” is a Commie! Who else would read such a book? That’s the rant that we would have heard if the photo had shown Ted Kennedy instead of Rove. And wouldn’t it make a great excuse for the remaining fruitcakes who want to believe Bush can’t make a mistake? The right wing could finally admit things are screwed up, because of the Commie who wormed his way into Bush’s inner circle!

When my son saw the photo, he suggested a video script for YouTube: Rove is banging his shoe on the witness table in front of a Congressional committee, as he refuses to testify under oath. A remake of the famous Khrushchev maneuver at the UN. I’d love to see it.

Judging from the reviews posted on Amazon, the book looks pretty good: “a fascinating picture of the inner dynamics of the Soviet state and its leadership during the Khrushchev era that far surpasses anything U.S. intelligence could manage at the time.” Maybe Rove is attracted by the similarities between the two regimes: Khrushchev “tended toward recklessness” and had to be restrained by his inner circle “from plunging the superpowers into war.” Bush’s inner circle aggravated instead, and we have the unhappy result.