Assuming it isn't washed away by Tropical Storm/Hurricane Isaac, August Prairie will be covering the Republican National Convention. No, not in Tampa, but from the comfort of our living room. We can't promise our coverage will be thorough, entertaining, or even coherent. Honestly, it may just be a string of profanities and drunk ramblings. However, we do promise to try to try and give meaningful coverage.
We'll be live blogging each of the main speakers, such as the keynote by New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Vice-Presidential candidate and Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan, and of course the acceptance speech by former Massachusetts governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. Expect other posts throughout each afternoon and evening, and for stuff that is too ephemeral or unworthy of a major post can be found via twitter.
Because I'm an effete, arugula nibbling islamofasciocommunosocioanticolonial community organizer with a fancy-schmancy Opossum League degree*, I'll be watching MSNBC's coverage, with occasional jaunts to CNN or CSPAN if MSNBC is showing Pat Buchanan, Tweety Matthews is having feelings go down his leg, or they switch to a prison lockup show. You couldn't pay me enough (okay, if I were getting paid MAYBE) to watch Fox News.
Please note that short of him announcing a floor challenge to Romney, or that he was a Democratic plant all along, we will NOT be covering whatever that fat-fingered vulgarian Donald Trump has to say.
UPDATE: Obviously, there won't be any coverage on Monday, because the RNC cancelled its Monday session due to weather concerns. We'll see if there are further changes because of Isaac. Stay tuned...
*To everyone but me, this is known as the Ohio Valley Conference. GO EIU PANTHERS!
Friday, August 24, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
How we got here: A history of partisan politics in America
For about twenty years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the vast majority of the leaders of the young United States of America attempted to rise above partisan politics. It wasn't that they agreed with each other (far from it), but more that as "gentlemen" they were supposed to be above the rough, seemingly destructive nature of party politics. Sure, there had been an informal division between supporters of the Constitution (Federalists) and those who had doubts about parts, or even the entire document (Anti-Federalists). Still, these groups were far from the nineteenth century parties, let alone our modern concept of parties.
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
By the time George Washington set a very important precedent by stepping down at the end of his second term, partisanship was already well entrenched. On one side were the Federalists, led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton. There power was based in the aspiring aristocracy of the Northeast, with a much smaller base centered around the lowland plantations of South Carolina. On the whole, they were proponents of a strong activist government, a central bank, and good relations with Great Britain. They were suspicious of too much democracy, rattled by the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, as well as the deteriorating mess of the French Revolution.
The other group would eventually be known as the Democratic-Republican. Led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, their power base were the farmers and most (but not all) of the plantation owners of the south, as well as many of the business owners and merchants in the Middle Atlantic and New England states. They were generally in favor of smaller government, and shunned most of the pomp and ceremony held dear by Federalists. Most of them were skeptical of a central bank, mistrustful of its power over the economy. They tended to favor the French, seeing them as fellow republicans amidst a sea of absolutists and aristocrats. Unlike the Federalists, they were incredibly wary of standing armies, and believed commerce between republics would ultimately end the need for war.
The election of 1796 was the first contested Presidential election in the history of the United States. At the time only nine of the sixteen states at the time bound their electoral college votes to the popular vote. Just a small percentage of the population could vote even in the states where it mattered, in most cases only white property owning men 21 years or older. John Adams won the most electoral votes and Thomas Jefferson came in second. Under the Constitution at the time this made him Vice-President. As Adams' term went on, it was clear that having a hostile Vice President was not exactly the best idea, particularly in a partisan world.
As the European wars continued, and both French and British fleets harassed American merchant ships, tensions continued to rise. At various times it appeared the USA would go to war against Great Britain, France, or both. The Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition acts, which led Madison and Jefferson to push for the theory of nullification, first by the young state of Kentucky, and later by the Old Dominion of Virginia. By the election of 1800, which would pit Adams and Jefferson against each other again, it was clear partisan politics were here to stay.
Over the next couple of weeks, as the Republicans congregate in Tampa and the Democrats meet in Charlotte, I'll be taking a trip through our nation's tumultuous history of partisan politics. My main purpose for this is to shed some light on how the modern parties became what they are. I figure the best way to do this is to divide posts up by various election years that I find most important. Note that these years don't always line up with Presidential election years, or with the most obvious years. However, they are the years which to me seem most pivotal in the development of our two party system. Two of the years will be midterm elections, harbingers of much larger developments for the waves that would happen the next Presidential elections. Since they are so recent, and we have yet to see their last impact, I'll tackle 2006, 2008, and 2010 together.
One final note before I give you the list of years I'll be writing about. Clearly this blog is tinted a deep, dark blue. However, I have no intention of clouding these posts with any sort of judgement, merely to document what led to these shifts, and what impact they would have for years to come. The one exception is the last post, which will detail where we sit here in 2012, and where I see things going.
And now, here are the years we'll be visiting.
Part 1: Introduction and 1796 (This post)
Part 2: A Return to Partisanship: 1824
Part 3: The Legacy of the Anti-Masons: 1832
Part 4: The Junior Party is Born: 1856
Part 5: Silver and Gold: 1896
Part 6: Progressives Ascendant: 1912
Part 7: The Business of Americans is Business: 1920
Part 8: The New Deal Coalition Emerges: 1930
Part 9: The Great Southern Shift Begins: 1964
Part 10: The Rise of the Rabid Right: 1978
Part 11: The New Democrats and Triangulation: 1992
Part 12: Bush v. Gore: 2000
Part 13: A Partisan Roller Coaster Ride: 2006, 2008, and 2010
Part 14: Where We Stand Today: 2012
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
August Prairie, Round 2
This evening I watched one of my favorite movies, 1776. It is a musical from 1972 based on the Broadway show of the same name. As made somewhat obvious from the title, it is about the men who gathered together in Philadelphia in June and July, 1776 to debate whether or not to declare independence from Great Britain. Although many delegates have parts, the main characters are Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, and especially John Adams. Of all the members of the 2nd Continental Congress, Adams has to be my favorite. Sure, everyone loves witty old Dr. Franklin, and as he was a tall intellectual, I can relate to Jefferson. Adams, of course, was known for being sarcastic, caustic, and absolutely committed to independence for the assembled colonies. For months on end, he kept trying to push the Congress to accept in law what had happened in practice: That we were a free and separate nation from the British Empire. Here is the opening scene of the movie which shows Adams berating the Congress for delaying a vote or even debate for independence.
My friends, family, and occasional neighbors have likely had a similar reaction to my frequent political rants. I can imagine as I reach a crescendo of "GOOD GOD WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE BLAH BLAH ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BACHMANN BLAH BLAH McCARTHY BLAH BLAH RATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" that they are thinking "Sit Down, Andrew". As annoying as Adams could be, it didn't change the fact he was right. Of course, his caustic nature certainly hurt his cause, as that crucial vote for independence took more than principled indignation to get done. It took diplomatic skill, agonizing compromises (thank you, South Carolina), and a crazy 80 mile dash by Caesar Rodney to get it done. Far too often I've lashed into long diatribes on this and that, usually in the presence of my family. It has reached the point where they have gotten sick of it, and for good reason. Sometimes it is because I'm preaching to the choir. Others times it is because I 'm being so antagonistic that I trigger a defense mechanism to redouble on your views, even if they may be unsound. I consider myself a strong believer in nuance and complexity, and consider viewpoints differing from my own to be just as valid. However, when I am talking, or discussing issues, I can be awfully forceful and combative. The biggest reason I do this is because often I'm too willing to abandon my position when some other point of view comes along. Because of this, it is hard for me to stand my ground, so I force myself to take a harder line in order to keep from being too wishy-washy and indecisive. Also, I'm apparently intimidating to some people, which seems ridiculous to me (I've never seen myself that way). However, I suppose a large guy who looks like he has a scowl on his face and can make his voice rather loud can be a bit imposing.
After my sister finally confronted me on this, I decided to make an effort to stop with the stump speeches when at my parents. It's made things less contentious when I'm there, although it has been hard biting my tongue a few times these past few weeks. Of course, it could be worse, as we're still in silly season. Once the campaigns REALLY start (i.e. after the conventions) it will be harder, especially if they have the news on when I am there. As I have given up annoying my family, and I still maintain my internet rule #1*, this blog is my one major source of political discussion. I've not done a damn thing with it since 2010, and I won't be doing much with it for the next few weeks.
Frankly, absolutely nothing that happens during this time of year will impact the election in November, at least not in regards to the news. Until both parties give their nomination bashes in Tampa and Charlotte, we're all just pissing in the wind. But once Romney mentions Reagan 85 times per minute in his speech, and Obama tries to evoke the memory of President Bartlet in the hearts of disillusioned liberals, there just isn't much to write. So other than maybe a few posts about the Civil War, or on governance or politics independent of our current situation. But come August 27**, game on.
One final note: On my hiking blog I discuss a very influential hike at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. In it I mention making it a life mission to work on solving some of our most vexing ecological and environmental issues. While I don't have any plan or anything set up at this time, I will be sticking to this vow. As Walk With Nature is a hiking blog (with a bit of nature), this will likely be the place where that mission will begin. Please stay tuned for further developments.
*THOU SHALL NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON FACEBOOK. This even extends to posting links to this blog. I kind of wish I'd violate this, but I'm keeping politics out of Facebook, as it and politics mix like oil and water. Tumblr, however, well that is fair game.
**The start of the Republican National Convention. I can't promise I'll watch all of it, but I can promise I'll try to watch some of it. Remember, conventions are mainly meant to fire up the base, and as I am so fucking far from the base of the GOP, the speeches will not be targeted towards me. I imagine I'll have an easier time with the DNC.
My friends, family, and occasional neighbors have likely had a similar reaction to my frequent political rants. I can imagine as I reach a crescendo of "GOOD GOD WHY CAN'T THESE PEOPLE BLAH BLAH ROMNEY BLAH BLAH BACHMANN BLAH BLAH McCARTHY BLAH BLAH RATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY" that they are thinking "Sit Down, Andrew". As annoying as Adams could be, it didn't change the fact he was right. Of course, his caustic nature certainly hurt his cause, as that crucial vote for independence took more than principled indignation to get done. It took diplomatic skill, agonizing compromises (thank you, South Carolina), and a crazy 80 mile dash by Caesar Rodney to get it done. Far too often I've lashed into long diatribes on this and that, usually in the presence of my family. It has reached the point where they have gotten sick of it, and for good reason. Sometimes it is because I'm preaching to the choir. Others times it is because I 'm being so antagonistic that I trigger a defense mechanism to redouble on your views, even if they may be unsound. I consider myself a strong believer in nuance and complexity, and consider viewpoints differing from my own to be just as valid. However, when I am talking, or discussing issues, I can be awfully forceful and combative. The biggest reason I do this is because often I'm too willing to abandon my position when some other point of view comes along. Because of this, it is hard for me to stand my ground, so I force myself to take a harder line in order to keep from being too wishy-washy and indecisive. Also, I'm apparently intimidating to some people, which seems ridiculous to me (I've never seen myself that way). However, I suppose a large guy who looks like he has a scowl on his face and can make his voice rather loud can be a bit imposing.
After my sister finally confronted me on this, I decided to make an effort to stop with the stump speeches when at my parents. It's made things less contentious when I'm there, although it has been hard biting my tongue a few times these past few weeks. Of course, it could be worse, as we're still in silly season. Once the campaigns REALLY start (i.e. after the conventions) it will be harder, especially if they have the news on when I am there. As I have given up annoying my family, and I still maintain my internet rule #1*, this blog is my one major source of political discussion. I've not done a damn thing with it since 2010, and I won't be doing much with it for the next few weeks.
Frankly, absolutely nothing that happens during this time of year will impact the election in November, at least not in regards to the news. Until both parties give their nomination bashes in Tampa and Charlotte, we're all just pissing in the wind. But once Romney mentions Reagan 85 times per minute in his speech, and Obama tries to evoke the memory of President Bartlet in the hearts of disillusioned liberals, there just isn't much to write. So other than maybe a few posts about the Civil War, or on governance or politics independent of our current situation. But come August 27**, game on.
One final note: On my hiking blog I discuss a very influential hike at Hetch Hetchy Reservoir in Yosemite. In it I mention making it a life mission to work on solving some of our most vexing ecological and environmental issues. While I don't have any plan or anything set up at this time, I will be sticking to this vow. As Walk With Nature is a hiking blog (with a bit of nature), this will likely be the place where that mission will begin. Please stay tuned for further developments.
*THOU SHALL NOT DISCUSS POLITICS ON FACEBOOK. This even extends to posting links to this blog. I kind of wish I'd violate this, but I'm keeping politics out of Facebook, as it and politics mix like oil and water. Tumblr, however, well that is fair game.
**The start of the Republican National Convention. I can't promise I'll watch all of it, but I can promise I'll try to watch some of it. Remember, conventions are mainly meant to fire up the base, and as I am so fucking far from the base of the GOP, the speeches will not be targeted towards me. I imagine I'll have an easier time with the DNC.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Let the Tax Cuts Expire
Mr. President,
I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.
I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.
However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.
Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.
The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.
But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.
Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.
I'm a middle class taxpayer. I appreciate that you, Mr. Biden, and most of the Democrats in Congress have done to help stabilize the economy. I truly believe you are trying to work the best possible solution you can. However, I severely disagree with extending the Bush tax cuts for all, and would be willing to sacrifice additional money out of my pocket if it meant securing a longer term victory here.
I'm aware the situation looks bad. Conservative Democrats and the Republicans have done their best to back you into a corner to support extending those irresponsible tax cuts. You're humbled by the results from November 2, and feel that maybe the Republicans have a point. Also, you feel throwing out the middle cut tax cuts just because the rich get to keep theirs is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. I can see your point, and in some ways can see the validity of this decision.
However, that doesn't change the fact that these tax cuts are irresponsible. At a time when sooo many people are running around yelling about OMGZ!!!! TEH DEFICIT OMGZ!!!, they don't seem to care about ending one of the biggest causes of that deficit: a stupid tax cut rammed through by President Bush in the middle of a long and expensive conflict.
Use your constitutional prerogative, and let these tax cuts expire. Will you be excoriated by The Village? Probably. Will tea partiers and Fox News sluts and Evan Bayh say mean things about you? Yeah. Of course, its not like these things don't happen already, even when you did cut taxes. The stimulus package was heavy on tax cuts, but that didn't prevent 90% of Americans from realizing that you had actually cut their taxes. They'll think you are a tax and spend liberal no matter what you do, so show real leadership, and take on Boehner and his friends on this one.
The only reason why this wouldn't be a good idea is if Congress shows a likelihood of overriding your veto. And maybe that's why Axelrod sent up the white flag in his interview. I hope not, because that shows Congress has completely given into ignorance, and the path to recovery grows ever dimmer.
But failing that scenario, pick a fight with the GOP (and the Conservative Democrats) on this one. Take your case to the American people, and accept that some may hate you, if only for a while. Make the GOP own the situation, and pressure them to come to the table to work out real tax reform that truly benefits the middle class.
Leadership is oftentimes about seizing the moment, zigging when conventional wisdom says you zag. You understood that during your campaign, but at times seem to have forgotten that while in the White House, focusing on smaller technical things, rather than the bigger picture. You stood up and did the right thing regarding the AIG bonuses, as bad for PR as that decision was. I am confident you know what you are doing, but hope I am missing something if you fail to take this opportunity.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Where do We Go From Here?
You'd think tonight's address by the President about the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom would be a reason to celebrate. After all, it is the result those of us who opposed this action since 2003 have been looking for. Even with 50,000 "advisers", plus thousands of contractors, left in Iraq, it should be a victory for us.
However, I can't take solace in this milestone. At best it is just a partial correction of one of our nation's biggest foreign policy blunder, another step on the long road to atonement. At worst its just a way for us to escape the situation before it collapses like Saigon in 1975. This small piece of good news is dwarfed by the fears of another recession, an absolutely dreadful employment picture, and the toxic sludge of an overheated political environment. And oh yeah, we're still stuck in a dire situation in Afghanistan, the "good" war that we had supposedly won when we started the "adventure" in Iraq.
When Obama was elected in November 2008, I thought we had won a great victory. When Keith Olbermann announced Obama was projected to go above 270, the pop-culture romantic in me viewed the moment like it was the scene in Return of the King where Gandalf reacts to The One Ring being destroyed. It truly felt like the battle had been won.
Instead, it was a deceptive moment. The battle hadn't been won, but rather had just begun. Like it or not, the other side wasn't going to accept the inevitability of a new era of responsible governance tilted to the left. Nor were they going to reassess their party and return to the roots of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Instead, the GOP noise machine led by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh amped up the crazy, and the inmates took over the asylum. Relatively sensible Republicans, such as Charlie Crist, were chased out of the party in favor of radicals such as Marco Rubio and Sharon Angle. Realizing they were fighting for survival of their cult of Reaganomics, they dug in and decided to gum up the Senate with petty politics.
The President and the Democrats in Congress have done a lot. They've passed bills, imperfect though they may be, that are trying to fix our nation's health care and financial messes. Roads and infrastructure across the country have benefited from a necessary, if too small, stimulus package. Things have been accomplished, despite the cries on DailyKos and firedoglake to the contrary.
Despite these victories, the Democrats are poised to get their asses kicked come November. Some of the most pessimistic predictions state that both the House and Senate will fall back into the hands of the Republicans. Personally, I think the Democrats will maintain their majorities, albeit with much smaller margins. Of course, some of those new Republicans may be folks like Sharon Angle.
Personally, I think this all goes back to the fact that Democrats in Congress seem almost apologetic that they are Democrats. They should be trumpeting the virtues of Health Care and Financial Regulation, instead of sheepishly admitting they voted for these. If they voted for these policies, they should own them. Its time to go on the offensive, and not just pointing out that your party is less dangerous than the other one. I know it seems counter-intuitive to champion that which is unpopular, but it is partially unpopular because the message was dictated by the opposition. The only way to cut through that cloud is to attack it.
I'm aware I haven't done as much as I should have. Sitting here writing blog posts does little to advance the cause. I've donated a few bucks here and there to some candidates and groups like Emily's List, but have yet to volunteer to help build on that 2008 victory. I intend to do something about that, and will let you know what that is.
We are stuck in a drop-down, drag-out battle for the soul of this country. If we don't want the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins and Marco Rubios running this country, we better get to work. Even if November results in a defeat for us, we must continue the fight. So to answer the question posed by the title of the article, we will walk through the fire, ever forward, tough though it may be.
However, I can't take solace in this milestone. At best it is just a partial correction of one of our nation's biggest foreign policy blunder, another step on the long road to atonement. At worst its just a way for us to escape the situation before it collapses like Saigon in 1975. This small piece of good news is dwarfed by the fears of another recession, an absolutely dreadful employment picture, and the toxic sludge of an overheated political environment. And oh yeah, we're still stuck in a dire situation in Afghanistan, the "good" war that we had supposedly won when we started the "adventure" in Iraq.
When Obama was elected in November 2008, I thought we had won a great victory. When Keith Olbermann announced Obama was projected to go above 270, the pop-culture romantic in me viewed the moment like it was the scene in Return of the King where Gandalf reacts to The One Ring being destroyed. It truly felt like the battle had been won.
Instead, it was a deceptive moment. The battle hadn't been won, but rather had just begun. Like it or not, the other side wasn't going to accept the inevitability of a new era of responsible governance tilted to the left. Nor were they going to reassess their party and return to the roots of Lincoln and Roosevelt. Instead, the GOP noise machine led by Fox News and Rush Limbaugh amped up the crazy, and the inmates took over the asylum. Relatively sensible Republicans, such as Charlie Crist, were chased out of the party in favor of radicals such as Marco Rubio and Sharon Angle. Realizing they were fighting for survival of their cult of Reaganomics, they dug in and decided to gum up the Senate with petty politics.
The President and the Democrats in Congress have done a lot. They've passed bills, imperfect though they may be, that are trying to fix our nation's health care and financial messes. Roads and infrastructure across the country have benefited from a necessary, if too small, stimulus package. Things have been accomplished, despite the cries on DailyKos and firedoglake to the contrary.
Despite these victories, the Democrats are poised to get their asses kicked come November. Some of the most pessimistic predictions state that both the House and Senate will fall back into the hands of the Republicans. Personally, I think the Democrats will maintain their majorities, albeit with much smaller margins. Of course, some of those new Republicans may be folks like Sharon Angle.
Personally, I think this all goes back to the fact that Democrats in Congress seem almost apologetic that they are Democrats. They should be trumpeting the virtues of Health Care and Financial Regulation, instead of sheepishly admitting they voted for these. If they voted for these policies, they should own them. Its time to go on the offensive, and not just pointing out that your party is less dangerous than the other one. I know it seems counter-intuitive to champion that which is unpopular, but it is partially unpopular because the message was dictated by the opposition. The only way to cut through that cloud is to attack it.
I'm aware I haven't done as much as I should have. Sitting here writing blog posts does little to advance the cause. I've donated a few bucks here and there to some candidates and groups like Emily's List, but have yet to volunteer to help build on that 2008 victory. I intend to do something about that, and will let you know what that is.
We are stuck in a drop-down, drag-out battle for the soul of this country. If we don't want the Michele Bachmanns and Sarah Palins and Marco Rubios running this country, we better get to work. Even if November results in a defeat for us, we must continue the fight. So to answer the question posed by the title of the article, we will walk through the fire, ever forward, tough though it may be.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
I will say it now and unequivocally: I am a strong proponent of gay marriage. There is no good reason for it not to be legal, and is not legal due to a media and political culture built on hating "them", and a mixture of political cowardice and realism from those who are more friendly to the GLBT community.
I just cannot see how anyone who truly believes in love or the value of marriage would deny it to others. Look at it through the eyes of a parent, how could you deny your son or daughter the ability to be happy, to be treated like the human and American citizen they are, with all rights and responsibilities that entitles them to? The thought that hate and ignorance would blind you to putting yourself in the shoes of those wishing to get married is beyond me.
I'm aware that you might stand pat on this issue because an ancient book has a few lines of scripture against homosexuality. I'm sure you keep sabbath, ritually butcher your meat, and feel slavery is OK, right? Believing in the legal right of homosexuals to enter into the mutual business partnership that is marriage is compatible with not sanctifying the marriage in your church. If two men wish to make their commitment legal, that has little to do with how God will deal with their lives. To me this smacks of determining the works of God, and thus is attempting to explain the unexplainable.
But won't this lead to ghost/horse marriage, or the legalization of polygamy? Of course not, don't be thick. Those of us on the left of this issue don't quibble over the number allowed in the partnership, just the gender of the parties. The idea that giving those nice next door neighbors who own the antique shop the right to marriage would lead to Mr. Ed and Rick Santorum getting hitched is just ridiculous.
Nevertheless, I understand the reality of the political situation that has kept Democrats from acting on this. The other side seems to be doing an excellent job of fomenting misinformation, and are passionate in their misguided beliefs. To reach too far on this issue risked a major backlash, and not just by Republicans. There has been more support of civil unions, mainly because it defuses the emotional power and resonance of "marriage". Still, its not the same thing, and amounts to "separate but equal".
Before Prop 8 passed in 2008, it appeared things were changing for the better. While things are getting better (DADT might finally die its well-deserved death), the fight is far from over. Those who are against the rights of our homosexual friends are powerful, passionate, and eager to fight that which frightens (and confuses) them. The best way for us to succeed is getting like minded individuals elected to our state and Federal legislatures.
I just cannot see how anyone who truly believes in love or the value of marriage would deny it to others. Look at it through the eyes of a parent, how could you deny your son or daughter the ability to be happy, to be treated like the human and American citizen they are, with all rights and responsibilities that entitles them to? The thought that hate and ignorance would blind you to putting yourself in the shoes of those wishing to get married is beyond me.
I'm aware that you might stand pat on this issue because an ancient book has a few lines of scripture against homosexuality. I'm sure you keep sabbath, ritually butcher your meat, and feel slavery is OK, right? Believing in the legal right of homosexuals to enter into the mutual business partnership that is marriage is compatible with not sanctifying the marriage in your church. If two men wish to make their commitment legal, that has little to do with how God will deal with their lives. To me this smacks of determining the works of God, and thus is attempting to explain the unexplainable.
But won't this lead to ghost/horse marriage, or the legalization of polygamy? Of course not, don't be thick. Those of us on the left of this issue don't quibble over the number allowed in the partnership, just the gender of the parties. The idea that giving those nice next door neighbors who own the antique shop the right to marriage would lead to Mr. Ed and Rick Santorum getting hitched is just ridiculous.
Nevertheless, I understand the reality of the political situation that has kept Democrats from acting on this. The other side seems to be doing an excellent job of fomenting misinformation, and are passionate in their misguided beliefs. To reach too far on this issue risked a major backlash, and not just by Republicans. There has been more support of civil unions, mainly because it defuses the emotional power and resonance of "marriage". Still, its not the same thing, and amounts to "separate but equal".
Before Prop 8 passed in 2008, it appeared things were changing for the better. While things are getting better (DADT might finally die its well-deserved death), the fight is far from over. Those who are against the rights of our homosexual friends are powerful, passionate, and eager to fight that which frightens (and confuses) them. The best way for us to succeed is getting like minded individuals elected to our state and Federal legislatures.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Mr. Olbermann, please read up on Your Civil War History
Dear Mr. Olbermann,
Although I think you made some good points in your Special Comment tonight, you really goofed up on your Civil War History. John Pope did not replace George McClellan atop the Union Army after Antietam. Here are the ways that is incorrect:
1) After Antietam, McClellan was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, not John Pope. Pope was on his way to the frontier of Minnesota by that time, as he had lost the disastrous battle of 2nd Manassas.
2) When Pope was brought East, he wasn't technically replacing McClellan. They both had independent commands. Effectively Pope's command became the primary focus of maneuvers against the Army of Northern Virginia, and he was bolstered by plenty of McClellan's troops. After Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and their troops humiliated Pope, McClellan regained control of the theater.
3) The battle of Antietam was not a "disaster". It was a strategic victory for the Union that was tactically a draw. True, it is arguable that had McClellan sent in the V Corps in the center of the line, they might have won a victory. However, that is a debatable point, and is hardly a disaster. Lincoln didn't remove McClellan because of the result of the battle, he removed McClellan because he refused to move against Lee before winter would shut down campaigning.
I know your point didn't care about the success of Pope, but it wasn't the best example. Pope was an awful general, and Lincoln's aides were right to be skeptical. I suppose Joe Hooker, who had his own little controversy over civilian control of the military when he was named to replace Ambrose Burnside, would be a better example. In that case Lincoln kept him on the job after his comments about the necessity of a military dictator, while chastising him for those words.
You are better than that, Mr. Olbermann. What's more, YOU KNOW YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT.
Its been 1,592 days since something happened 1,592 days ago. Good night and good luck. Don't stay tuned for the Rachel Maddow Show, as she is on MSNBC and not this infrequently updated blog.
Although I think you made some good points in your Special Comment tonight, you really goofed up on your Civil War History. John Pope did not replace George McClellan atop the Union Army after Antietam. Here are the ways that is incorrect:
1) After Antietam, McClellan was replaced by Ambrose Burnside, not John Pope. Pope was on his way to the frontier of Minnesota by that time, as he had lost the disastrous battle of 2nd Manassas.
2) When Pope was brought East, he wasn't technically replacing McClellan. They both had independent commands. Effectively Pope's command became the primary focus of maneuvers against the Army of Northern Virginia, and he was bolstered by plenty of McClellan's troops. After Lee, Longstreet, Jackson and their troops humiliated Pope, McClellan regained control of the theater.
3) The battle of Antietam was not a "disaster". It was a strategic victory for the Union that was tactically a draw. True, it is arguable that had McClellan sent in the V Corps in the center of the line, they might have won a victory. However, that is a debatable point, and is hardly a disaster. Lincoln didn't remove McClellan because of the result of the battle, he removed McClellan because he refused to move against Lee before winter would shut down campaigning.
I know your point didn't care about the success of Pope, but it wasn't the best example. Pope was an awful general, and Lincoln's aides were right to be skeptical. I suppose Joe Hooker, who had his own little controversy over civilian control of the military when he was named to replace Ambrose Burnside, would be a better example. In that case Lincoln kept him on the job after his comments about the necessity of a military dictator, while chastising him for those words.
You are better than that, Mr. Olbermann. What's more, YOU KNOW YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT.
Its been 1,592 days since something happened 1,592 days ago. Good night and good luck. Don't stay tuned for the Rachel Maddow Show, as she is on MSNBC and not this infrequently updated blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)