June 2015 Archives

Dear America,

Last week was a very important one in American history.  The U.S. Supreme Court rendered two rulings that are seminal in resolving future tensions between and among states' rights, federal power and the rights of the individual.  In Obergefell v. Hodges, The Court held that homosexuals have the same right to marry that heterosexuals have, and in King V. Burwell, The Court held that federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act can be extended to the insured in states that have decided not to provide an insurance market place on the internet just as they are to the insured in states with state run health insurance market web sites.  But the significance of those cases, over and above their implications for the people individually effected by them, is far broader than just those specific results.  Of course, the extension of the right to marry is profound for millions of people as is the universality of eligibility for health insurance subsidies among those who cannot afford insurance on their own.  But more important in both cases is the line that has been drawn around "states' rights," which has been the rallying cry of all those who would rather employ a euphemism for odious opinions than come right out and admit their opinions on the validity of other peoples points of view.  States' rights were the pretext for defying the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  States' rights have been the cause for which conservatives were purportedly fighting in both King and Obergefell, and in Obergefell in particular, they are the ox that conservatives are claiming has been gored, but the reality is that conservatives don't like the idea of homosexuals being enfranchised in our society.  Their motivation has nothing to do with vindicating the rights of anyone; they are motivated by the desire to prevent some from having the rights that they do.  But there is an overarching principle that the Supreme Court has vindicated in general terms, and it has neither a liberal nor a conservative bias: the federal government can act for the protection of the American people, even when states have refused to do so.

The actual legal axioms that operate in Obergefell are those in the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that bar states from enacting laws or taking any action that deprives any citizen of a right, protection or privilege that it avails to other citizens.  And apropos of the issue in Obergefell, the amendment was written as it was to prevent the southern states from ever passing laws that would have even the effect of disenfranchising anyone, not just black men and women.  The blather about leaving the definition of marriage to the states is nothing but a red herring intended to obscure the fact that conservatives don't accept efforts by government to intervene in their affairs, but they don't mind if the states intervene in the affairs of people whom they don't like.  Still, the conservative voice on the issue of states' rights holds sway in a large swath of states, and among conservatives in other states looking for a rallying cry, other than overt gay bashing, to scrawl on placards and bumper stickers.  But the Supreme Court has now said that they have to call their prejudices by their right names, because states' rights have nothing to do with them.  In its essence, The Constitution says that states have powers...only people have rights, and now, the Supreme Court has said that in no uncertain terms.  States may not exercise their powers in violation of the rights of people.  They don't have the right to do so.

As to King, the decision of the Supreme Court, which I must admit I haven't read yet, seems to stand for the proposition that has always arched over statutory construction by the courts: a statute cannot be interpreted so as to yield an absurd result, and an absurd result is what the plaintiffs in King were looking for.  The fact is that there was an omission from the Affordable Care Act that was a function of carelessness, not intent.  When the authority to subsidize insurance premiums for those less fortunate than most of us so that even they could afford health care, it was couched in language that related to premiums paid by those who got their insurance through state run insurance market web sites.  It never said that those who got their insurance through the federal web site couldn't have the subsidies, so the claim that such people were barred from getting them was an insertion into the law, not a provision that was necessary by implication, and that is essentially what the Supreme Court said.  Essentially, King stands for the proposition that one cannot vitiate the effects of a federal law by attributing to its language something that isn't there, and further, if the only way to make a law sensible is to construe the statute in a global sense and draw implications from its broader purpose for want of specific language that is dispositive, then that is what the court may do.  And believe it or not, conservatives in the Republican Party are breathing a sigh of relief.

Both of these cases had the potential to be hurdles in the campaign of any Republican running for president in 2016 because the Republican Party is now on the wrong side of public opinion nationally.  Even the Affordable Care Act has turned the corner now with the most recent polls indicating that more people favor the act than oppose it.  As to the rights of homosexuals in the form of gay marriage, the tide has long since turned with more than 60% of Americans favoring extending to homosexuals the same right to marry that heterosexuals have--two more rounds fired out of the Republican foot-shooting pistol that they managed to dodge despite very careful aim.  Mind you, both decisions were close, and the conservatives still think they have some business telling other people whether they can be married or not, and they still think "Obamacare" is some kind of government plot even though the extent to which people who don't need the law have been injured by it is so minimal that no one I know knows anyone who has been negatively impacted by Obamacare, and chances are that no one you know knows anyone either.  So, once again, the newly conservative Supreme Court that gave us decisions like Citizens United, which authorized those with money to take more control of our electoral process than they already had, have rescued their fellow conservatives from...themselves really.  In other words, they have done right in spite of themselves.

Your friend,

Mike

Dear America,

When I first heard Bernie Sanders' announcement that he was running against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, I though it was a noble gesture intended to make Clinton think about some things from a more populist perspective...a beau geste, but something more in practical terms.  Sanders said from the beginning that, even though he serves in The Senate as an independent, he was running for the Democratic nomination only.  He said from the beginning that failing the achievement of that goal, he would not run in the Presidential election as an independent...a concession to his opinion that any Democrat was a better choice than any Republican.  And since I share that opinion, I was very happy to see the advent of Sanders' campaign for its potential to bring Hillary Clinton to the realization that there are principles in politics, and that sometimes they effect who gets elected, albeit maybe not this time.  Sanders stated his platform very simply by pointing to his motivation for this run; we have become a nation characterized by economic injustice by virtue of the accretion of most of the nation's wealth in the hands of the very few, and social injustice is ineluctable in such circumstances.  That position is not quite an anomaly in American politics these days, but no one except Bernie Sanders has been willing to put his credibility on the line to vindicate the point, and thus I thought that his campaign would be like a bumper sticker rather than a genuine rallying cry.  That was alright because he wouldn't be the kind of spoiler that candidates like Ralph Nader have been.  It's hard to say this with any assurance, but we probably got George W. because of Nader.  At least he didn't help to prevent it.  With Sanders campaign being self-limiting in that way, I felt that some few of us would be sufficiently empowered to advocate for him and at least make a point before Hillary took to the presidential election forum.  But as it turns out...well, not so fast, Hillary.

Sanders has been attracting unexpectedly large crowds, one in Minnesota number 3,000 or more, and RSVP's for one upcoming in Denver number about the same amount, and that along with the sincerity of his quest have also garnered him a considerable amount of press coverage, both electronic and print.  In fact, though Clinton declared her candidacy first, We've heard more about Sanders over the past month or two than we have about her.  In fact, that is probably why she decided to give her own policy speech last weekend: Bernie was stealing her thunder.  Though there is a third candidate in the race--a former governor of Maryland named O'Malley--I've heard his name only a couple of times on the news, and that was on the day he announced his candidacy.  Sanders gets mentioned more than either of his two announced rivals, not that that means anything in particular, but it can't be a bad thing.

All in all, my perspective on the candidacy of Bernie Sanders is that it can only serve a noble end.  His forthrightness on the issue of social stratification based on accreted wealth in the hands of as few as 10,000 families is compelling, and if nothing else, Hillary Clinton, who professes to be aware of that inequity and against it with a willingness to take policy steps directed toward reversing the upward flow of money, is going to have to address the issues with some practical suggestions as to how to effect a change.  If she does, the ardor of Sanders supporters will be diluted and Hillary may be able to assuage the concerns of not just the majority of Democrats, but the majority of American voters as well.  But if she doesn't, she may see the tide turn against her despite her current seemingly insurmountable advantages just as she did in 2008.  In that event, Sanders might just get the Democratic nomination by default, somewhat the same way as George McGovern did in 1972.  That could be a good thing or it could be a bad one, but as long as the Republicans have their foot-shooting pistol drawn--I don't believe there is a one of the 11 Republican candidates announced, nor of the many others who surely will follow them into the fray who can be considered a shoe-in, even against Sanders--there is a chance that we will see the election of President Sanders in 2016.  I would love to see that, and with Bernie's promise not to help a Republican get elected, the Democrats seem to be on a winning course.  Thank you Bernie Sanders.

Your friend,

Mike

Dear America,

I don't know why I am still surprised when a Republican's strategy for political gain is to heap more of the same on a pile of more of the same.  This week, President Obama agreed to send another 450 more "advisors" to Iraq to train Iraqi soldiers--as if nearly fifteen years of continual training, not to mention fighting their battles, weren't enough--but continues to insist that we will no longer fight in Iraq.  John Boehner, the poster boy for political hacks, gratuitously commented that, while he approves of the move, the President still does not have an "overall strategy" for defeating ISIS.  And The President was no surprise either when he made no comment, though the comment he should have made is obvious; we have no strategy because it isn't our war to fight, and until the Iraqi army is willing at least to fight for itself...especially when they outnumber their enemy by a hundred to one...money and a token force of trainers and body guards are all we are going to give them.  Iraq just isn't our war anymore, and as to Syria, it isn't ours either.  I think that most of the American public sees that, and would gladly join in a pejorative chorus of boos directed toward Boehner and the Republican "gotcha" brigade for trying to gin up some criticism of that policy, which is the very strategy that Boehner was bemoaning the absence of.  Boehner, John McCain and Mitch McConnell are so predictably and mindlessly partisan that their stale moves shouldn't be surprising anymore, but somehow I am always caught off guard when they break out their foot shooting pistol and fire off a round.

Of course, I am always surprised when President Obama says nothing about the Republicans' advocated follies instead of confronting them head on when that seems to be his only modus operandi: silent mode.  If I were advising him, I would suggest that he just ask a simple question of, in this instance, Boehner: what is your suggestion.  Outside of invading the middle-east again fourteen years after the last disastrous decision to do so, what does he think we should do that we aren't doing, that's what I would like to know.  If he shoots back, "I'm not the commander-in- chief," my response would be, "That's right, so why don't you just get back in line and support the one who is commander-in-chief...either that or come up with something other than, we need a strategy and I don't have one, but yours isn't it."  And speaking of silence, what about the rest of the middle-east.  If I were advising President Obama, I would suggest a conference call to the the grand poobah of Iran, the Kings of Saudi Arabia and Jordan, the President of Turkey, whoever controls the Kurds and their peshmerga, and even Prime Minister Bibi of Israel and tell them that until ISIL gets ICBM's and a huge navy, the battle in the middle-east isn't ours, and we won't be fighting it for them.  They should all see that, at least in this instance, setting aside animosities that are as much as two millenniums old and applying their resources together to make short work of ISIL is the only strategy that will prevail.  And after the phone call, which should last no more than sixty seconds, I would play a tape of it for the world, including the President of Iraq, whom I would call separately.  To him I would say that he'd better find a way to prevent Shiites from massacring Sunnis with impunity, or he should probably flee because the Sunnis and ISIL will be at his office in ten minutes looking for the next head to chop off.  Without Sunni support, there is no hope for Iraq other than partitioning the country, which may be the best idea anyway, and if that happens, the political hacks who run Iraq now will all be without jobs to wear their suits and neckties to.  It'll be back to burkas and tribal politics for them, just like everyone else.

Maybe all this is too simple an explanation of the best strategy for the United States to follow, the bottom line is that ISIL has "boots on the ground" and someone else has to too.  It just won't be us this time.  Just as with John Boehner, I may not be right, but unless you have a better idea...

Your friend,

Mike

Dear America,

I didn't think the Republicans would leap into internecine politics so early this time after what happened in 2008 and 2012, but I guess you really can't teach an old dog new tricks.  We are well over a year away from the next presidential election, and more than six months from the first primaries, but the bombast and blather have begun in the Republican field of more than ten already.  The Democrats, on the other hand, have only three declared candidates at this point, and two of them are quite civil about it.  Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have been subdued, though Sanders isn't shy about pushing Clinton to take positions on issues like the impending Pacific trade pact that President Obama is getting considerable resistance over.  But the issues of income and wealth inequality are at the core of  that issue...as will be the entire Democratic platform as it will ultimately be debated among the suitors for the loyalty of the Democrats who vote.  Thus, the choice of a candidate for 2016 will probably hinge on what each of them says about a very tight circle of specifics like international trade, banking and finance and taxes.  The Republicans, on the other hand, seem like a gang of thieves looking for a way into the vault, none of them really having any particular plan but all of them focused on only defeating one another...and Hillary.  Their problem is that they haven't had anything to say since Barrack Obama took office.  They just keep protesting what is without proposing anything that should be, and now they are doing it at one another's expense with a kind of sophist abandon that is at best unseemly.  Lindsey Graham claims that he has more foreign policy experience than Hillary Clinton even though his experience is only as a committeeman in The Senate while Clinton ran foreign policy for the entire nation for the first four years of The President's administration.  The claim is preposterous, but Graham makes it with his bare face hanging out as if no one will notice his grandiosity, bombast and conceit.  Rand Paul is taking a dogmatically libertarian position on more and more as he goes on, apparently unable to restrain himself from slipping toward the edge of the flat world he would have us all live in.  Of course, Ted Cruz has nothing good to say about anyone, but his John Birch tendencies are there for all to see, and no one but the Tea Party will be anything but frightened by them.  Of course there are also several second...and third tier competitors as well, and they have no potential to be anything but spectacular flame outs, so the only other serious candidate to talk about is Jeb Bush, and he hasn't really done much to distinguish himself.

Bush is a Bush, after all, and despite his attempts to separate himself from his family without seeming perfidious, his brother, George W, is a perpetual drag on Jeb's efforts to gain ground.  He is no longer the front runner;Scott Walker is, but he isn't breaking away from the pack, and the Republican Party looks as fractious and bumptious as it has been for the rest of the past decade.  Not that there is no high rhetoric on the Democratic side.  Former Maryland governor Martin O'Malley has joined the race and he seems at the outset to be a little edgier than Sanders and already more frenetic than both Sanders and Clinton, and he does make some points for the benefit of the left leaners among Democrats.  He, like Sanders, will play the same role as Cruz and Paul play for the Republicans, that is they will be forces pushing Clinton to the left, but the difference is that the left for Democrats includes raising the minimum wage, reigning in corporate executive compensation, controlling our finance industry so that we don't have a repeat of 2008, much less 1929, and taxing the super rich, in which they are not hindered by the supply-side myth to which the Republican establishment has had its wagon hitched for the past three decades since the Reagan administration.  There are very few rich people to vote for the next presidential candidate, but a lot of working poor.  They need the insurance that they have gotten out of the Affordable Care Act, and they see the Republicans trying to eradicate the benefit that over ten million people now have taken advantage of.  And even in states like Texas, where over a million poor people are being denied the security of the ACA's Medicaid expansion, conservative values won't overrule the practical reality that if you have no access to medical care, you die.  Add the Republican refusal to rule out a round two for American fighting forces in Iraq and you begin to see a pattern of self-destructive obduracy based on failed, but faithfully advocated policies.

I still don't think that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic candidate, probably of her own volition.  And between O'Malley and Sanders, I would have to say that O'Malley is the more credible, though in our state's primary, I almost certainly will vote for Sanders because he is a true liberal rather than a pragmatic one.  In the end, however, the next president of the United States hasn't yet declared in my opinion.  I saw an article about 21 Democrats who are reasonable prospects, and there are some names among them...names that could get a lot of votes...but only time will tell who actually has the fortitude to brave the icy waters of presidential politics and emerge without turning blue and shriveling up in the process.  Any way it goes for the Democrats, it seems to me that they have a better chance than any Republican in 2016.  Whoever the Democrats elect, it will be someone who looks forward, and the Republicans have only denizens of the past as of this moment.  We've all been there, and had them do that.

Your friend,

Mike