What can we take away from what is perhaps the largest protest in human history involving tens of millions? What can we take away from a military coup ousting Egyptian President Morsi? Don't mess with Egypt's democracy - at least not while all of Egypt is watching!
The Muslim Brotherhood that set up a puppet regime in propping up Morsi, who had repeatedly attempted to consolidate power in an Islamic state, had overreached. A recent Baseera poll showed that three quarters of the Egyptian public questions whether any of his actions as president were positive. How did he get here? Some of it has to do with worsening economic conditions in Egypt, but that isn't why he is here. Islamists were already flooding the military from the bottom up. Having threatened the military as a secular institution remaining independent from a radical Islamic agenda, the Muslim Brotherhood made an even clearer enemy out of the military's leadership. Morsi tried to overthrow the checks and balances of a judiciary that was standing in the way of rushing through a constitution that represented their extreme agenda. The legitimacy of his government collapsed in the process. Some argue that this represents a dangerous precedent, and it does. The military overthrow of an elected representative is not desirable as a precedent. Yet being elected to office is not the only measure of legitimacy. The actions elected officials take to uphold or tear down the institutions of democracy are just as important to the legitimacy a government has. Morsi's administration failed miserably by this standard, and at the cost of any stability that some might have used to justify keeping him in power. His model for co-opting democratic institutions in order to overthrow them and form an oppressive Islamic state has failed.
Many of us are suspicious of the military taking control of Egypt, and with good reason. The military has an opportunity to work with the opposition and form genuinely democratic institutions. This is why the opposition is meeting with them and tentatively lending support to the military involvement. This is why people like Mohamed ElBaradei support this action. There is a danger here in military control, but there is also a danger that Egypt could become a failed state as it falls into civil war. It remains to be seen what motivation is driving the military involvement. If they intend to keep power for themselves, then Egypt will be thrown into chaos.
My heart breaks for these people. They have seen their revolution taken over by extremists and just as they have returned to Tahrir square to reclaim it, they must remain vigilant to keep the military honest. I have faith in these people. They have sent a shot across the Middle East that the people of this region will keep returning to the streets to demand real democratic reforms. Islamic radicals or military regimes that deviate from those revolutionary aims will be held to account for their actions. Morsi's ouster by the military would not have been possible had he extended himself to the opposition through genuine democratic reform. The meaning of these events in Egypt have one meaning above all others. The people of Egypt will not rest and they will be the ones who drive events as they unfold. They will return as often as necessary to bring about change. The people of Egypt are not alone and their efforts represent the aspirations of a whole region demanding more.
While Egypt is far more cosmopolitan than other countries in this region, this uprising has more in common with the rest of the unfolding events following the Arab Spring than differences. I don't claim to be able to peer into the future. This could become disastrous and at the cost of many lives and the liberty of a whole nation. I only claim that Egyptian people will not accept the efforts of those who stand in the way of democracy. As military helicopters fly over the protesters tonight, they are illuminated by lasers that the people in the streets of Tahrir Square shine on them. It is a message of support, but is also a warning: "We are watching you!" My heart is with the Egyptian people and I share their dream to finally bring about the democratic reform that is the object of the hope pouring across that country tonight, as they celebrate events that the people of Egypt were able to drive. If anyone deserves a shout out then it is the youth of Tahrir Square. They have just sent packing one of two major centers of power in Egypt, in ousting the Islamists. They sent the other one, Mubarak's dictatorship, just two years earlier. They drive the conversation and have made a measure of what our actions should look like.
The Supreme Court has just struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), ruling that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to discriminate between straight and same sex couples. This is a broad sweeping decision that will allow gay couples that are married to have equal recognition by the federal government and access to the same federal benefits that straight married couples have . In the proposition 8 case, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff, simply being a voter in California, has no standing to appeal the broad decision handed down by a state court which reinstated gay marriage in California. We have reason to believe that Justice Kennedy would be willing to join a 5-4 decision to strike down discrimination between straight and same sex couples at the state level, were such a case to be brought before the Supreme Court. I remain hopeful. I'm proud to have been a part of this movement and to witness history. I can't help but think of Harvey Milk. I suggest that each of us remember why this happened. It is because of people like Harvey Milk who agitated for homosexuals to stand up and be recognized. He argued that when the gay community comes out that society changes, that when they know you it is harder for them to discriminate against you. Sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, friends, co-workers, and many others who let their families and communities know who they were made this possible. It was Harvey Milk and those who followed him and stood up who made this day possible. It is up to them and the rest of us to keep this conversation moving towards equality under the law. “All men are created equal. No matter how hard they try, they can never erase those words. That is what America is about.” -Harvey Milk
Justice Kennedy, four other justices, all of those who came out, and those of us who fought for their cause have written our words within democracy. I watched as the news broke and wept tears of gratitude for Harvey Milk and the hope he gave us, a man who lost his life in the service of this cause. I think it is poetic that today had direct ramifications for the state in which he fought so hard to make a difference. I have to go my phone is blowing up with texts.
Most of the comparisons between our government and George Orwell's "1984", that aren't playful, are little more than hyperbole that is juvenile and hackneyed. We don't have thought crimes, and citizens aren't the property of the state. That being said I'm going to suspend my better judgement, because I feel that buried within all of those hackneyed comparisons is an honest point. One that is ugly, perhaps clumsy, and that... yes... may even violate my good taste! Yet it is my belief that a narrow parallel being drawn reflects something developing in our state, just as much as it has often reflected a clumsy critique of that state when understood too broadly. When "Big Brother" is watching in "1984", I think it is appropriate for us to ask how different the apparatus of the surveillance state we now live in is from the one portrayed in the book. I'm not asking whether we could end up with something like the surveillance state in the book, but what are the real differences between the kind of surveillance state they have and the one we have as it stands now. The Fourth Amendment prohibits search and seizure with out a warrant, despite this fact our government argues that it has a right to collect the emails of those who aren't under suspicion. I've yet to hear an interpretation of the Constitution defending these programs in their current form that respects the rule of law. While I might not be as concerned about the rule of law when some one engages in civil disobedience, whether my government respects the rule of law when it comes to the Constitution is an entirely different matter. We live in a state that is too secret for oversight. One that has eliminated many of the opportunities for oversight. No one can bring a suit who can't prove that they've been spied upon, and no one knows if they've been spied upon. Senators aren't allowed to bring legislation to the floor addressing these programs because they are classified. Instead of simply classifying the means and methods of these programs, the net of secrecy is cast as wide as possible to include any account of the kinds of sacrifices we are making in terms of our privacy. The system our nation was predicated on wasn't based on trust. It was based on checks and balances that involved a citizens access to the courts making these determinations, or the ongoing legislative oversight by their elected representatives. One that wasn't different in principle from the notion Reagan put forward when he said, "Trust, but Verified". I've heard Lindsey Graham and others argue that if the government wants to read their email then that's just fine with them. Good... why don't you go ahead and forward your email for them to read. This argument ignores the fact that the space for individuals to exist separate from the state, is threatened when their phone calls or emails are seized without warrant. What this argument fails to understand is that we are not a collective hive, and my liberty isn't something that you can sacrifice because you wouldn't be bothered. That is not up for democratic debate. The Bill of Rights is unconcerned with how you think technology has changed, or what kinds of my liberty you are willing to sacrifice. To suggest otherwise is to invite the comparison to the book, at least in respect to the surveillance state. A surveillance state that is too secret for oversight. One that is no longer held accountable to the checks and balances of the judiciary, elected representatives, or the innocent citizens whose privacy it violates.
I'm sure that an administration that has been relentless in crushing whistleblowers will find it easy to criticize someone like Edward Snowden, and his breach of security. While it is still unclear who he is, it is hard not to look at the man behind the story and see someone who could be any one of us. As this story moves forward we will be told who he is by different people representing different interests. If nothing else he is courageous, and in the mean time all of us are having the debate he hoped we would. After listening to him I am of the opinion that this issue couldn't have found a clearer and more articulate voice then Edward Snowden, if he is who he says he is. He explains himself in a manner that is calm and rational as he speaks, with words that have a quiet power, and yet who he is doesn't matter. Who are we?
Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace are a credit to Fox News, and I mean that. They would be a credit to any cable news channel... even if it wasn't Fox News. Shepard Smith and Joe Scarborough are right to be concerned here. The president has been an utter disappointment when it comes to the transparency he vowed to bring to government, and as a guardian of our privacy. Why should we even expect transparency on how the government handles privacy, from an an administration that elsewhere claims its own activities within the IRS weren't even transparent to the president. Why are we so upset? As Jack Balkin notes the advent of the security state is inevitable. He notes that we can either have one that collects as little data as necessary and tells us as much possible about what it is doing, or we can have one that collects as much data as possible and tells us as little as possible. Anyone who thinks there is any doubt as to which one a secret program, most of our senators and representatives were unaware of, that is a vacuum cleaner sucking up the whole internet falls into is under a delusion. Hypocrisy is also troubling here. This president criticized the Bush administration for searching library records. What is the difference between what the Bush administration was doing in respect to those issues and the course that Obama has pursued? Is it that the Bush administration searched records without any transparency at all? Oh wait... that is what has happened here as well. Senator Merkley of Oregon started looking into this rabbit hole and found himself in a classified security wonderland he was not allowed to even address through legislation! He was reduced to introducing an amendment that in effect said, "Hey... um... there is a program that is classified that I can't talk about that is concerning... and maybe we could declassify some of it so that we could engage in some oversight." While Bush assumed the powers that he exercised, Obama has merely built up a secret legal architecture to defend them. One that is without proper oversight and predicated on a legal framework that is one of the most deferential interpretations defending the exercise of government power. While I usually respect the voice Chris Wallace brings to our national discourse, I am a bit perplexed here. He states that the FISA court is providing the necessary oversight, and that he wouldn't want to trade the freedoms we have for those that they have in China. First of all the FISA court is a joke that almost never ends with any punchline other than approval of the actions taken in the name of security. Rick Klein revealed that there was a letter sent to Senate leader Harry Reid from the NSA last year, in it is stated that the FISA court had 1,789 requests that same year as of late August. Only one was rejected. This must be because the people running our national security apparatus are so competent and almost never engage in overreach. Anyone who flirts with such a fantasy must dismiss the entire messy history these agencies have had, and why FISA was set up in an attempt to use smoke and mirrors to placate those who wanted to reign in the abuses perpetrated by them. We have courts that work and I don't see how one that has turned itself into a rubber stamp has any resemblance to them, or counts as oversight. While his reference to FISA is irritating, his reference to China is frightening. How is China any measure of what kind of state we want to live under. Is this any kind of argument at all. It ought to make us shudder. The security state we now live in has been bipartisan, and if you want to recognize how far it has come. China has become a measure of what kind of society we are.
Liberty as a possession we share, as the bond we have with each other as Americans, has been misunderstood. It has been understood as a possession. Libertarians, as those who have done the most to stand up for our liberty, have often been those most responsible for distorting it. We should forgive them for this, despite the monopoly they have pretended to exercise over the meaning of our liberty. They at least attempted to honor liberty. Liberty isn't a property of individuals in and of themselves, it is what demarcates the functional difference between individuals. It is also the boundary limiting the state's exercise of power. As long as we forget this, and that liberty is shared between us as a relationship, then the rigid lines drawn by ideologues cannot be far off. It is only when you conceive of liberty in a vacuum that you are able to confuse it for a property. If it is to have any meaning at all, it must be one that is functional. William James understood Pragmatism as the demand that a difference, in order to be a difference, must make a difference. It is ironic that it is here in the States, where pragmatism was born on the backs of pioneers, that we have forgotten this about liberty. Liberty must function as a reality of potential within our freedom. To the degree that it loses that functional measure, and is reduced to an ideological conception that no longer makes a difference, it is meaningless. Should it be understood as a property then it loses its meaning in relationship to other individuals and states. As I've mentioned in a previous post, the Ninth Amendment is revealing of the way the framers of the Constituition conceived of liberty. It declares that we have all of those rights not listed explicitly within the Constitution. It is something left open for each generation to complete. It is something that exists in a functional relationship between individuals or the institutions governing them. The genius of those who gave our nation's first draft of liberty is both subtle and layered. One facet of its expression within the Constitution was a functional theory of liberty. Liberty was carved out between the state and individuals to create the space necessary for them. They understood that society as a whole must work collectively, but that those collective efforts are served better by the contributions of individuals exercising their freedom. The framers understood that the success of the collective represented in the state and the success of the individual could not only find common purpose but were inseparable. It was an understanding that an individual must have an inalienable relationship between other individuals and the state in order to have the distance necessary to not be overrun by them. An understanding that didn't see the state as an enemy of individual liberty, but rather as a distinct entity marking out the boundaries of that liberty. While the overreach of many states is always a danger, the successful state even serves to preserve liberty. The individual is served best by a state that works to guard this boundary, so that an individual can fulfill themselves through the exercise of that liberty. The only meaning liberty can have is one given a functional definition. If we are unable to reasonably expect that we could exercise our liberty, in principle, as it currently exists between individuals and institutions then the space separating an individual from an institution is under threat. That is also to say that the distance between individuals carved out by liberty are under threat. If the institutional structures in place undermine the functional exercise of liberty then it isn't a liberty, and the space created for individuals collapses. Any ideological understanding of liberty will only serve to set up a legal phantom without meaning in place of a functional reality between individuals and the institutions with with which they share a boundary. The notion that the exercise of our liberty is never constrained by economic interests, or institutions in the market place that represent them, is absurd in the face of a functional theory of liberty. The notion that access to healthcare is irrelevant to the exercise of our liberty collapses when you recognize that the spaces created for individuals within an economic region of our society are left unstable. An economic institution is just as capable as a state of crushing the space for an individual to remain distinct in the boundary it shares with it. The only question here is whether an institution threatens spaces created for an individual separate from it. This is the only measure of any significance for our liberty. Is there any real space between individuals and other institutions being created? Does a specific conception of liberty threaten or promote the functional distance between them? This is why the framers of the Constitution gave us a document that demanded that each generation grapple with its meaning. The Ninth Amendment is one example of how our liberty is a boundary left open, that we must come to terms with as a generation responsible for it. A boundary that only respects the functional space that is created by liberties, rather than any ideological conception of them. It ought not concern us whether the oppressive institution collapsing that space is a government, or an entirely different one, bent on absorbing the individual. This is why our founding fathers gave us a functional theory of liberty, because whatever meaning it has ever had has been in the actual exercise of our liberty.
I hope we can take a moment, in between the all of the shallow chatter about who will replace him, to pay some respect to a man who never forgot where he came from. He had to support his family by working nights and weekends at the age of 19, after his father passed away from cancer. He went to college on the GI Bill, which allowed for him to ultimately make a name for himself in business as a CEO. It is those kinds of experiences that he brought to the Senate. His understanding of opportunity was informed by the lasting memory of adversity overcome, rather than by some abstract ideal. There is no ideological framework that can remain faithful to it. He knew our understanding of opportunity must answer to the reality of those who attempt to meet it. He stood at that door as an example of one of those who always made an effort to keep it open for the rest of us. As the last World War II veteran in the Senate, his death marks the end of an era. Dr. Samuel Johnson once remarked that coming into contact with your own mortality has a way of concentrating the mind. The priorities of veterans like him, and others who served in that war, were born of that kind of concentration. He will be missed.
Is the Republican party an endangered species? It could be - to misappropriate Ted Cruz's words, "We just don't know." Yet parties have a longevity to them because they adapt, instances like the extinction of the Whig party are rare. A party is essentially only a vessel occupied by changing constituencies. Is it likely that the Republican party could fall the way of other parties that failed to adapt? No, but why is this a question in a way that, "Is the Democratic party an endangered species?" is not? The first phase of an extinction is the regionalization of a party. We see numbers growing in the constituencies that have found a home in the Democratic party. We see this already happening in states like Virginia, that had a history of supporting Republicans. Voters in Virginia have voted for Obama two elections in a row. While Republicans in Virginia fare better in mid-term and off year elections, it is only because the wider electorate hasn't showed up to them so far. Virginia's electorate is increasingly put off by the antics of their governor who thought it was a good idea to require even women who have been raped to submit to an internal probe prior to gaining access to an abortion. Whether you agree with abortion or not, who thinks it's a good idea to force women who have been raped to submit to a probe - the answer to that question would be Republican Governor "Ultrasound" McDonnell thinks it is. This is one issue directly affecting one of the groups, namely women, in one state that has become a factor for Republican prospects of faring well when the rest of the electorate shows up to the election booth. Other states like Texas were once considered a bulwark of the Republican party and its success. Now demographics in Texas are shifting so rapidly that hispanics are likely to make it a swing state if the party isn't able to find a way to convert some of these voters into Republicans, the way George Bush had. When the party trying to court them talks about self-deportation and supports legislation that has been ruled within the courts to profile hispanics then that that task becomes problematic. The problem here is not at all limited to women or hispanics, but includes a number of constituencies that are becoming increasingly more difficult to entice as voters. When you consider that younger voters of all kinds are moving away from the Republican party, then you begin to wonder if the party can adapt. It is the direction of more youthful voters that ultimately drives that adaptation. There is a movement here towards that end in the Republican party, but it is within the libertarian wing of that party. Social issues like gay marriage are toxic to any effort to court these voters. Most younger voters don't think the government has any business prohibiting homosexual couples from getting married, while straight couples are sanctioned by the state.
It is likely that Republicans will adapt, and that the libertarian wing will become more dominant within the party. It is hard to see how social conservatives and libertarians could find common ground on the issue of gay marriage. While Ron Paul has successfully drawn libertarian voters into the Republican party, while maintaining a pro-life stance, his stance on gay marriage is a band-aid. Kicking the issue back to the states only postpones a battle. Eventually young libertarians will want to know how the Republican party will address this issue at the state level. That is where the fireworks come in. How do Republicans find common ground between social conservatives and libertarians on gay marriage? They can't. Social conservatives will simply be left homeless on the issue in a party that will eventually evolve in the same way the party and Sean Hannity are evolving on immigration reform. Ironically it is social conservatives that are leading the way on this other evolution, since they see the future of there churches tied to the rising number of hispanics in the United States. Where will they go? Nowhere, they will stay in the Republican party and evolve or they will stay in the Republican party as a constituency tied to that party by an issue that commands their loyalty. The idea that the legal sanction of gay marriage by a state could ever compare with the issue of abortion is absurd. It's the view of social conservatives that abortion is murder. There is no backing away from an issue that carries the magnitude of moral concern that this issue does for them.
Other constituencies are in play here, but not to the same degree. America no longer accepts Neoconservative appeals to military adventurism or nation building. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Republican party, where the voices gaining ascendancy in the party are vociferously opposed to the kind of hawkish foreign policy represented by John McCain. Neo-conservativism died with the Bush administration, John McCain and Lindsey Graham are museum pieces in regards to these issues. Fiscal conservatism will have a home in the party, and like capitalism more generally, it is fluid enough to adapt to a changing environment. This brings us to the Tea Party. While discussion of these other constituencies seems to be deceptively clean in the kinds of divisions it involves, the Tea party is a phenomena that doesn't map onto this landscape in any clean or explicit manner. It is probably more representative of the reality of how these different groups relate, in terms of that ambiguity. Voters are poorly represented as a block in the way that the kind analysis above is dependent. The Tea party in some ways acts as a microcosm for the kind of debate that is occurring within the Republican party at large. Social conservatives within the Tea party battle libertarians within it over the direction it has as a movement. While some of the concerns ostensibly motivating the Tea party ought to concern all of us, there are other issues at play here besides whether or not our government is going bankrupt. The most obvious concern has to do with their name: (T)axed (E)nough (A)lready. While many of the most vocal leaders of that movement represent a move to drastically shrink entitlement programs, the vast majority of it's members simply want them to be reformed so that they remain solvent. The fact that they don't write it on their homemade signs doesn't make this point any less real. Ironically the vast majority don't even want cuts to Medicare. The problem with the Tea Party is that its movement doesn't form a coherent direction in policy when you consider the positions held by its members and the positions expressed by its champions. It's fine when you want to oppose "Obamacare" to hold together this kind of group. What happens when a program like Medicare, that pays out three times what is paid in, ends up implementing reforms like means testing? The bigger problem here is that the rise of voices like Rand Paul that would seem to represent the more youthful adaptation towards libertarianism, is accompanied with all of the baggage that is holding the Republican party back in other ways that I mentioned earlier involving issues that directly impact hispanics and women. Voices in the Tea Party represented by Ted Cruz call for measures that the rank and file may like the sound of, but only until their benefits are cut. Ted Cruz is becoming one of the standard bearers for the Tea Party, and he seems more than happy to cultivate extremism where ever it is found on the right. As long as the direction here is to harden ideological divisions that are unable to do anything other then obstruct legislation, or governance in general, then the division between those advocating these stances and those voters who decide who holds office will only widen.
There is a civil war occurring here within the Republican party, but it isn't only one set of interests against another over the soul of the party. It is to a large part comprised of two conflicts. One war between more libertarian elements that represent the parties future and another that represents its social conservative wing. It is also a conflict between one set of voices within the party that comprises a cynical establishment and another set of voices trying to purge the party of ideological impurity. The problem between these two groups is that neither represent the party's future. A third voice is beginning to form here, but only issue by issue, within different members who find themselves drawn towards what is problematic on a host of other issues. Marco Rubio is forward looking in many ways on the issue of immigration, and yet he balances that effort by pandering to that ideological purity on other issues. Rand Paul has lead the way in overturning the Neoconservative wing within the party, but only because he is ideologically credible to more extreme elements in other ways.
Democrats could just as easily find themselves here. If they don't come to the table over reforms and get serious about making entitlement programs solvent then they will. It is only because of some of the issues I mentioned earlier, that Republicans have found themselves in the wilderness. Both parties seem driven towards ideological excess. There are two main reasons any party dwarfs another. One party learns how to express its core values in ways that represents some of the appeal in the values expressed by its opposition and eventually overwhelms them. The other reason a party succeeds is because its competition implodes. Democrats shouldn't kid themselves here, it obvious that one these parties in a civil war and another is simply better at treading water at the moment.
A pitch battle has broken out between the "Whacko" birds and the Republican establishment. The most recent scrimmage between John McCain and Ted Cruz, seems to illustrate what is at stake for the Republican party. John Stewart takes a humorous look at Ted Cruz and some of the highlights of his freshman term.
How did the Republican party end up here? Before I try to offer some perspective on the rise of the "Whacko" bird, I want to identify some of its distinguishing characteristics. In Ted Cruz we find a version represented by its political leadership. This unique type is capable of an astonishing amount of cynicism. There is nothing decent or noble about appropriating the sort of unsubstantiated insinuation McCarthy used during the red scare. It's hard to describe his attack on Chuck Hagel, during Hagel's confirmation to Secretary of Defense, in any other way. Armed with little more than rumor he suggested that Hagel, a decorated veteran, was a Manchurian candidate for North Korea. As he would say, "We just don't know." I would hope that we would give a veteran who had served our country in a foreign war the benefit of the doubt, but here we even see doubt manufactured out of fringe conspiracy theories. As disturbing as this development is, I'm comforted by the fact that it is more of an amusing absurdity than a sinister development. As Stewart's "best of" compilation reveals, Ted Cruz is no stranger to the kind of cynical politics that invokes unsubstantiated insinuations, or references a slippery slope towards totalitarianism that pair well with the trajectory of conspiracy theories. Yet this isn't what makes him dangerous. What makes him dangerous is where the cynicism ends and the ideology begins. Ted Cruz isn't using the debt ceiling debate as a cynical ploy - he really would prefer the federal government default on its debt rather than find any middle ground between spending cuts and tax increases. I admit there is virtue in taking a stand against raising the debt ceiling if deficit spending isn't addressed. The merit in such a stand evaporates the moment you contribute to the problem by refusing to allow any compromise that would incorporate tax increases as part of a comprehensive package requiring shared sacrifice. Newt Gingrich is not a beloved figure, or even one that is terribly honest, but he came to the table and negotiated a deal. Newt Gingrich and Bill Clinton were able to eliminate deficit spending because of that deal. While Ted Cruz and some of his fellow "Whacko" birds take extreme positions that threaten to force our nation to default on our debt, other Republicans are starting to take notice of the effect it is having on the party. This brings us to the recent battle between them. Although the start of the recent speech given on the Senate floor by Ted Cruz references Lilliputians, some of the best parts come later. I personally love the part of his speech, around 6 minutes and 30 seconds in, where he responds to the charge from John McCain that he is a "Whacko Bird". Yet my intention here is to direct you to the section beginning around 4 minutes and 30 seconds in to the clip. He is trying to define what the central issue at stake between him and John McCain is over the debt ceiling.
John McCain is an honorable man in many ways. Yet he, like many in the establishment of both parties, has used cynical nods to more extreme elements within his party to curry favor. Ted Cruz is correct to point out here what the differences they have are. Ted Cruz and his flock of "Whacko" birds really are willing to allow the Federal government to implode by defaulting on its debt, John McCain and the Republican establishment are only willing to feign such measures. One end of this conflict represents the sort of cynicism that has been willing to allow this problem to grow, while the other end believes that it isn't unreasonable to sacrifice our nation's economic stability to address it. While Republicans try to contain the "Whacko" bird, Democrats are being given a free pass. I'd like to believe that if they had a negotiating partner within the Republican party that they would come to the table - but I know better. The sleeping giant is that the extreme positions taken by the "Whacko" birds have cost the Republican party an opportunity to exploit ideological positions held by Democrats. I know full well that if push came to shove, it would be no easy task to get Democratic House and Senate members to agree to the sort of spending cuts or reforms necessary to make our entitlement programs solvent over the long term. These cuts and reforms are not only necessary to get Republicans on board with tax increases, but are necessary to any comprehensive solution to the deficit. We need the kind of compromises and shared sacrifice put forward by serious people trying to address this problem, like those put forward by the Simpson-Bowles commission. The ideological resistance to compromise exhibited by Democrats rarely makes news, at least not when you have Ted Cruz featured in the media every week threatening our economic stability and offering other varieties of extremism. It is difficult to not join the cynics and root with the establishment of both parties. It is difficult to not just hope we can at simply raise the debt ceiling, and postpone this problem. Where did the "Whacko" bird come from? Is it an invasive species? No, its been a long time coming. The "Whacko" bird seems to have flourished under the hothouse of an economic crisis, and the opposition some have to a black president hasn't hurt it. A president whose birth certificate became a serious issue for over half of the primary voters within the Republican party leading up to the last election. These factors play a role among others, but the most significant factor here could have been avoided. It's easy for the base of a party to connect with the ideological positions taken by its cynical politicians. It is not as easy to maintain that connection by a politician who is feigning that ideological purity. Eventually the base wants the real thing, and therein lies the birth of the "Whacko" bird. This is especially true when the issue isn't whether a veteran like Chuck Hagel is a Manchurian candidate, but is more ideological. Whether our nation will implode if we don't take extreme measures in order to stop avoiding the debt problem is just this kind of issue. It strikes to the core of those who are ideologically pure on the right. It isn't an invasive species - it's the logical trajectory of hard ideological positions that the merely cynical have fed a regional constituency for years. The problem is one of containment. Ted Cruz may be from Texas, but now Republicans see moderates in swing states falling under the onslaught of successful primary challenges. The problem is that "Whacko" Birds have failed to get elected as often as those ousted Republicans who were willing to compromise and get legislation passed, or at least postpone the problem with small-ball short-term tactics embraced by the establishment in both parties. The "Whacko" bird threatens to reduce Republicans to a regional party. An establishment candidate is caught between a shrinking party and the threat of losing his or her seat in a primary challenge from this new species. This new development may seem to represent an advantage to the Democrats, but it could lead to a pyrrhic victory. Dysfunction won't simply help the Republican party implode. It won't simply lead to them becoming a more regional party, allowing Democrats to pick off seats. It will also mean that no one is minding the store, and keeping Democrats honest. It means that no one is there to offer a credible threat - that no one is there to offer a viable alternative necessary to the kind of competitive politics of democracy, that allows the other party to evolve out its own orthodoxy. Worst of all, it means that there also may not be a negotiating partner to make sure that a nation is able to meet its obligation to pay its debts, with either taxes or spending cuts. While it is easy to see how raising the debt ceiling is an act of failure, considering that compromise isn't in fashion, there may not be an economy left to fix if we default on our debt. Eventually the rise of the "Whacko" bird could mean there isn't even anyone there across the aisle to be able to raise the debt ceiling. As Ted Cruz mentioned on the floor, "There may be more Whacko birds in the Senate than is suspected".
I remember having a conversation with a Republican back when we tried to pass immigration reform in 2006. The argument centered around border security... of course. He thought that immigration reform must follow increased border security, which on the face of it seems like a reasonable request. Where the problem lies is in what kind of answer you give to the question: "How do you determine that the border is secure?" It was this sort of problem that was to unravel the opportunity to pass comprehensive immigration reform during Bush's presidency.
As the Senate takes up the issue of Immigration again, we see some of this debate returning. We continue to see this debate because we don't share any common motivation for reform. The gang of eight senators, which includes Democrats and Republicans, are attempting to pass a bill with a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. The opposition they have received from Republicans opposing that pathway has tried to focus attention towards the debate over the border. You're going to hear a lot of noise about how much "I want to support immigration reform... but you know... that pesky border" or "This administration can't be trusted to secure the border". It seems so sincere until you dig into how someone like Rand Paul wants to ensure that the border is secure. He wants to pass an amendment to have congress vote, at some point in the future, on whether the border is secure. He wants to put our congress in charge of that determination. He wants this congress... the congress that couldn't avoid sequestration to do that. This is how to kill the whole idea of reform, but more than that it is how to simply kill the bill. Anybody who cares about reform won't accept putting that determination in the hands of a dysfunctional congress. Especially when the 80th congress, the "doing-nothing" congress, looks like a powerful agent of change next to the current one. The desire to kill this through subterfuge is what drives this sort of amendment suggested by Rand Paul. Otherwise there would be an effort to translate concern over that determination into the hands of an independent body outside of the administration... and congress. But...why the Subterfuge...why the "Sneaky Pete"? What's the motivation here to kill it without leaving fingerprints?
There are lots of pretty arguments on both sides. Those supporting a pathway argue that it is the only way we can bring people out of the shadows, and that our border will never be secure so long as we have over 11 million people who are undocumented. They argue that those who don't offer a pathway are in effect supporting that status quo. Those in the opposition argue that a pathway would undermine the rule of law, and act as a magnet for illegal immigration. I personally think we can make legal immigration more attractive than illegal immigration, while opening up a pathway to citizenship to bring people out of the shadows. That's my pretty argument. Some think that we could just have guest workers. Which would seem like a two tier system of citizenship. One group comprised of real citizens, and another that can work here without any hope of ever being allowed citizenship. A second class that we might welcome to do the kind of manual labor that we can't find anyone else to do. A second class that better not hope to move into skilled work, that is less welcome. This kind of immigration reform sounds hollow to me... to my ears...but it isn't my ears that matter. None of these pretty arguments make any difference. The reason for the sneaky amendment, and the reason that you hear Republicans who oppose immigration reform talking about the border and the rule of law instead of self deportation is because they lost the fastest growing demographic in the electorate by a margin that ought to make any Republican operative shudder. Why do you think Sean Hannity "evolved"?
We are lucky to have Republicans like Marco Rubio, in the gang of eight, diligently working on this issue. I believe Marco Rubio is an honest broker on this issue, and I believe that the success or failure of this recent attempt turns on what he can accomplish here. That being said... Immigration Reform doesn't need Marco Rubio. Immigration reform is coming with or without him. During that discussion in 2006, I said that our differences on this issue are irrelevant in the face of political reality. The last election has only illustrated that point with an electoral defeat that largely was dependent on the thumping Republicans received from Hispanics. Immigration reform isn't the only issue that Hispanics care about. Yet, you would be hard pressed to find someone in the Hispanic community who isn't aware of how the ever increasing number of deportations, even under the Obama administration, affects that community. It is hard to care about other issues as much, when you know people who have had their grandmother deported. George Bush could never have been president with out having made immigration reform part of his candidacy. The margin by which he won different states in 2000, as well as in 2004, would have made it impossible without the support he received from hispanics. The Republican party, bent on going the way of the Whig party, is who needs Marco Rubio. Every election, as demographics shift, they need someone like him more than they did in the last one. Having lost the popular vote five out of the last six presidential elections... they need him like oxygen.
Terry Branstad, the Republican Governor of Iowa, has recently suggested that he might be willing to receive federal funds to expand Medicare under the Affordable Care Act. The consequences for tax payers and insurance premiums that would follow from a failure to cover the uninsured would be irresponsible, when federal dollars would cover state expenses for the first three years and 90% of those expenses after that. That hasn't stopped some red states from taking an ideological position refusing those funds, even though the citizens in their states will be paying for them with their federal taxes. They will also be paying higher insurance premiums due to the high cost of emergency room visits that the uninsured pass on to hospitals, who pass it on to insurance companies, who ultimately saddle that cost with the rest of us. Branstad is now arguing that we all have to come to the table and work together, and his solution seems to be to expand Medicaid for the state of Iowa, with the option to back out should the federal government pull away from its responsibility to fund that expansion. It's very promising and it looks like we may see him work with Democrats in the Iowa Senate. I hope he can set an example for other Republican governors on how to move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. I think it's reasonable for states to be concerned about the reliability of future funds from the federal government for the expansion of Medicare. His compromise would address this concern without the foolish consequences of rejecting that expansion. Let's not forget that this would probably not have been possible had Democrats in the Iowa Senate not held his feet to the fire, spelling out the kinds of consequences that I mention above. He seems to be moving on this issue and the Democrats should work with him to get this done. I wouldn't be surprised if we did succeed. Iowa has a history of setting an example of working across the aisle... hmm.... which reminds me of another post I wrote recently... "What's Wrong With Senator Grassley".
Madison addressing the House of Representatives in 1789: "It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against." This led to the Ninth amendment with in the Bill of Rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." These are the kinds of words Madison sought to have written into democracy. He wanted to ensure that freedom was written into it in a way that would resist the efforts to undermine it. This amendment often ignored by many is one of the most significant rights we have. It says that we have all of those rights that some would have attempted to deny us just because they were not overtly ratified within the Bill of Rights. What list of rights could ever ensure our freedom with out demanding that we have all the ones it doesn't mention? It is also one of my most cherished rights, because of what it reveals about freedom in our democracy. It is utterly unworkable as an amendment, if you are bent on reducing our rights to some simple meaning. Madison clearly intended for the Ninth amendment to be a doorway through which all of our freedoms and liberties, that weren't explicitly included, would gain entrance into the Bill of Rights. He was placing responsibility directly on us within this amendment. Our rights demand that we work at them to understand them. Madison was telling us that no paper was going to remove that responsibility from us. A responsibility that would be a heavy burden upon us all. Over the course of American history many have given their lives to it. Under this right we have the right to privacy and many others that are all implicit, but born on the backs of those who continue to fight for them. The whole Constitution is written like this, with loosely constructed language or areas where it simply requires us to determine what these implicit rights will mean. It places the burden of giving shape to democracy on the citizens that it ultimately rests upon. The only way the Supreme Court is going to be able to make a determination is by trying to figure out what the force of the principles behind all of our rights is. This is difficult because behind all of those rights is a principle among others of equality before the law. We have seen even the founders fail to fulfill the promise of that principle. Slavery wasn't abolished until the Civil War. So when we ask what the Constitution means we have to ask what the force of its principles are, even when we realize that the very same founders who gave us these words and their inspiration were people who fell short of them. They are not alone. All of us as citizens in our democracy striving towards the force of those principles have fallen short. Our responsibility to uphold equality before the law demands thats we actively engage it as citizens rather than simply receive it as subjects. Even today gay and lesbian couples are denied equality before the law. Whatever we may think marriage means, it is irrelevant in the face of our responsibility as a citizen and as a free people. Equality before the law doesn't care what we may think marriage means. As long as It is an institution that is sanctioned by our democracy, it demands that everyone have an equal opportunity in principle to be able to have access to it. At this point in history to fall short of this means that when it was our turn to expand equality under the law we failed. The standard that falls upon the founders who secured our freedom is different than the one we should labor under. The standard that falls upon those who fought for civil rights is different then the one we should labor under. We shouldn't expect more of ourselves then what these men and women had done, we should expect that we attempt to do as much as they had done! When they were given the challenge to expand our equality they did not shrug. They attempted to move us forward and we owe our future generations as much. It is the nature of democracy that each generation must remake its laws and interpret the ones it has received, that it write its democracy anew. This is what it means to be a free people. It is the responsibility of every American that when democracy is written by our generation that its words are equality before the law. This is what drove the founders to free a nation, this is what freed the slaves, and this is what brought women the right to vote. This responsibility is what is most sacred in our ties to that history. Isn't this is who we are and what it means to be a free people?
Senator Grassley used to represent one of the more pragmatic voices in the Senate. I watched as he abandoned the working relationship he had with Democratic Senators like Max Baucus and refused healthcare legislation to get a vote on the senate floor. I've watched as he refused to allow a vote on Background checks and a host of other issues. Now he wants to stall a vote on Immigration reform. Why has the Senator become a dependable bulwark to stop legislation from coming to the Senate floor? The change occurred during healthcare reform. He was working on a bipartisan bill but eventually decided to protect his seat rather than legislate, in the face of growing tea party opposition. To make sure that they knew he was another shrill voice they could count on, he referenced Sarah Palin's distortions about death panels and said he wasn't going to let anything happen to grandma. The reality is that Senator Grassley doesn't legislate anymore, he protects his seat. He doesn't allow votes to come to the floor because he is more interested in putting his finger to the wind before he takes his positions.
The death toll here is a direct result of the failure to integrate safety standards into free trade agreements, in countries looking towards increased economic development even when it comes at the expense of its workers. It is part of wider failure to incorporate labor and environmental standards into those agreements. Dress Barn and Benetton were more than happy to have the company that owned the factory provide them with cheap garments. It is no surprise that these kinds of disasters, as well as economic disparity here at home, are increasing as money is allowed to move without restrictions or regulation through international markets. Along the line of things I have mentioned in a previous post, when workers abroad aren't protected then workers here at home aren't protected. While we may not face the nightmare that is occurring in Bengladesh, we watch as wages here disappear since they can't compete with countries like Bengladesh. Why make something here at home when you can out source it to countries where safety is ignored and workers aren't paid a living wage?
The IRS was caught targeting right wing political organizations, those critical of government spending, and groups promoting the constitution. Targeting words and names like "Tea party", "Patriot", and "Debt".
While the White House describes this development as "inappropriate", Senator Susan Collins who is one of the more moderate voices within the Senate has described this new scandal as "chilling". I try to imagine what kind of concern I may have had, if more liberal groups had been the target and this had occurred during the Bush administration. While many of the references to Nixon passed around in the right wing media are unwarranted. The seriousness of the criminal infringement of political speech can not be dismissed like much of the pablum that gets thrown around. Had this scrutiny within the IRS been brought to bear upon abuses by "social welfare" organizations in a broad way that didn't target right wing political speech then this would have been a legitimate and welcome step. Ever since the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, undisclosed money has been flowing into these kinds of organizations that exploit tax structures traditionally used by groups like firefighters. Ads run under the pretense that they are issue oriented, and not promoting or attacking a candidate during an election... Which of course is absurd. No reference to any of the concerns about the abuse of tax structures by political organizations justifies or negates the concern here. The IRS cannot be singling out the political speech of right wing organizations. While this scandal unfolds we need to keep this in mind: Who knew what and when did they know it? It is not at all clear how far up this scandal goes. Those who want to suggest that this is a conspiracy that involves the White House do not serve their agenda well making these claims in the absence of facts. It doesn't help get at those facts, or bring those who are responsible to account. I'd also argue that it's not good for the country, but the number of people who care about that seems to be declining. Which is also probably why the IRS had gone awry, and thought targeting political speech was a good idea.
Benghazi... hmm... John Stewart sums up my sentiments about this better than anyone.
I especially love his response to Representative Steve King's comments. It's not hard to understand why he isn't up to the task of running for the Senate seat that Harkin is vacating here in Iowa.
To paraphrase the concerns of other civil libertarians: "There are two explosions when a terrorist attacks. The first explosion takes lives. The second explosion takes our liberties." I am pleased to see that the voices advocating water boarding have been marginalized by the greater recognition that we compromise most of the high ground by engaging in that practice. On this point the administration has aligned itself with that recognition, but it is failing to demonstrate that kind of recognition in the following respects. This administration appears to have chosen a policy of drone assassinations in order to avoid the messy legal implications of taking prisoners. A policy that has increased collateral damage and further aided the efforts of those who seek to recruit members to engage in terror. That policy of assassination has not been concerned about the difference between those who engage in conspiracy to commit terror and those who are loosely affiliated with them, or merely unfortunate enough to be related to them as a family member. Drone attacks have taken the lives of 176 children in Pakistan alone, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. This administration also continues the practice of rendition involving secret arrests, and the detention of suspects in foreign prisons. It has signed the National Defense Authorization Act which allows American citizens to be detained indefinitely with out legal recourse. I used to find indefinite detention without trial reprehensible regardless of what country the detainee was from, and now we see the natural extension of that logic to subject American citizens to this same practice. A recent development in the wake of the Boston Marathon attack is that Facebook and Google may be required to change the structure of their sites to allow the FBI and other agencies to wiretap in real time. If these agencies could get a warrant to wiretap these conversations, they could get one to perform a search of a suspected terrorist's property. That sort of warrant would have turned up the evidence necessary to stop the horrific attack in Boston. I don't see how requiring these web sites to augment their infrastructure so that they are complicit with an invasion of privacy would have done any better. By this reasoning we should get rid of the anonymity provided by our currency because it could allow terrorists to conceal purchases they make. This list of infractions to our privacy, access to legal recourse, and other liberties is growing. There is something in here for everyone. If you aren't disturbed yet, at this pace you won't have long to wait before you are. Liberal criticism of Obama on this front has been too quiet and those who are concerned about what is happening to our privacy and liberty need to hold him accountable. There is the potential for a large coalition to apply pressure if concerned liberals are willing to work with libertarians, despite disagreement over a range of other issues. However much I may agree with the president's agenda on a wide array of domestic issues, I won't sit quietly while American citizens and others are denied any legal recourse to their indefinite detention.
Irving Kristol has been infamously credited with having been an intellectual father of Neoconservatism. He said that he was a "liberal who had been mugged by reality". Neoconservatism has received a thorough thrashing from reality between the recent turn of the century and the eight years that have followed. I'm not really interested in being critical of Irving Kristol, or the rapidly shrinking Neoconservative wing of the Republican party. It is not my intention to address them or their views here, I might save that for another time. I was just struck by the same sense of having been "mugged" by reality. Strangely I seem to be a libertarian who has been mugged by reality. I often wondered as a high school student how a free people could ever have agreed to Theodore Roosevelt's efforts to increase the size of government and bust up monopolies. If free enterprise can be undercut, then the rest of our liberties were also being placed in peril. I hope you will forgive the "slippery slope" argument here, which is of course a piece of foolishness despite any partisan affiliation it changes. Nuance and complexity may have been lost on me… I was at least in high school when I used this argument. The complex historical realities behind this move were also lost on me. What would they matter anyway to my youth, in the face of our liberties. Do we not live in the land where Patrick Henry helped give birth to a nation with courageous words. "Give me liberty or give me death" are still words that stir me deeply. Back then they were written into my heart as a seal before all else. Any history lesson raising complex problems would have been pointless from the ideological purity I brought to an issue. Pragmatism was an American virtue that I failed to appreciate at the time. Which is disappointing, because its probably the quiet backbone that built an American century. That century was a difficult one that cannot simply be painted over, and yet it was often prosperous and forward in its trajectory on some of the issues it faced. It saw women's suffrage, the voting rights act, and a number of landmark changes for the better. Regardless of how complex all of that may be, pragmatism when it has taken a long view was what made America work. We were spared the parade of "isms" that turned Europe into a slaughter, in part because of the sound direction of pragmatism and compromise, as well as the distance we had from the crisis in Europe. It also played a role in driving innovation and enterprise during that century. It was the kind of pragmatism that saw busting up monopolies integral to the creation of a middle class as an engine behind that economy. Where is that pragmatism today? Prosperity devolving under company towns in the hands of a few hoards that could easily pressure the prices for goods and labor couldn't unleash the kind of American strength we saw in that century. The idea behind busting up the monopolies was one of strength gained in promoting a broad prosperous market. What relationship does any of this have to our liberties?
I said that I was a libertarian that had been mugged by reality. I want our rights as individuals to allow us to chart our own course with out the interference of governments. I want to cultivate the notion that liberty is our right despite what others may legislate. I want to promote private spaces that allow for us to find the most efficient means to build stable and flexible communities together. It has often been said that our liberties begin and end where one person's fist meets another's face. Isn't that exactly what has been forgotten about our liberties. What is inalienable within a right flows directly from the relationship of freedom they foster between us and other rights. If they are sacrificed to the degree that they come into contact with someone else's liberties, then they are without any meaning when understood independently of each other. Our liberties don't exist for us as a property of our nature as individuals in a vacuum, but as a relationship of freedom between each of us.
Understanding the deeper relationship between our liberties, and how they operate brings me to another point. This misunderstanding has dangerously undercut the ability of our liberties to function at all as a relationship of freedom between us. We live in a global world where our collective relationships with each other come into contact with those liberties between us in an intimate way. A pragmatic understanding is desperately needed to protect those liberties as relationships caught up within reality. If I pretend that the money I have represents some fixed economic quantity of value, and that it means something that is independent of my economic relationship to you, then I am likely to be gravely disappointed by my liberties regarding economic property. What could possibly go wrong? We have watched as this liberty washed away into something completely unstable, in the wake of subprime mortgages and derivatives that were sold between banks that also held onto savings… at least for a short while they held onto savings… until those banks started collapsing. Moralizing about banks or homeowners or bailouts won't bring that liberty back. Even if your money wasn't in those banks that doesn't mean you get to escape the economic collapse that follows. It doesn't mean that your property is protected. Your fist can't bring injury upon their faces without legal consequence, but the diseases your neighbor acquires after they lose their job and health benefits could kill you. The law won't protect you against that, your health and the value of your property aren't protected. Poverty has many meanings besides the economic one, and all of them are relevant. We have watched as our freedoms have been brought closer to destruction, after a failure to recognize their global reality. "If you do not share your wealth with the poor, they will share their poverty." The reality of that cannot be moralized away by appeals to personal accountability. If a poverty of democracy allows a people to become disenfranchised, and if poverty allows education to become a scarce resource then it affects my liberty. If poverty in other countries leads to poor sewage and limits access to clean water, if poverty allows disease to spread, if poverty allows these places to collapse further into economic failure and the inevitable failure of the state that follows, and that poverty allows terrorism to find a better audience then it affects my liberty. If poverty allows for environmental devastation, and nuclear or chemical waste that pollutes our environment then it affects my liberty. If poverty shows up at the emergency ward and can't pay, If poverty provides no shelter for them or for us from them then it affects my liberty. If poverty allows for the whole globe to fall into economic collapse or international wars like we saw in the last century, as they play out in a world where distances between places are growing smaller…what remains of the freedom that our liberties were meant to protect. If each of us as individuals ignore the impoverished areas of the world, and here at home, we place all of our liberties and their ability to function within jeopardy. Yes I am a libertarian who has been mugged by reality. Pragmatism demands that I understand that my liberties are inextricably bound to those around me, rather than appealing to ideas about personal accountability as if such legal distinctions could protect my liberties in any functional meaningful way.
