TARP has turned out to be much cheaper than we had expected, although not cheap. It means that some of that money can be devoted to deficit reduction. And the question is: Are there selective approaches that are consistent with the original goals of TARP — for example, making sure that small businesses are still getting lending — that would be appropriate in accelerating job growth?
So spoke President Barack Obama today, in what amounts to a prelude to tomorrow's speech on his fight against unemployment. Should he do what the pundits anticipate - i.e., should he use leftover funds from TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) in order to create what will essentially be a second economic stimulus - it will be fantastic news for the country. Already the first stimulus package has shown to be remarkably effective, both in preventing our great recession from becoming a full-fledged depression and in causing the slight growths in GDP and national employment that we have seen over the past couple of months. While the turnaround has not been as immediate as many would have liked (myself included), and while this fact has not only given conservatives political ammunition, but caused some liberals to question Obama's efficacy as Commander-in-Chief (myself included), the reality is that the unflappable steadiness with which Obama has stuck by his original economic program appears to have been derived from wisdom rather than bullheadedness. The current stimulus shows every sign of working; should Obama infuse an additional dash of cash into the economic engine, beginning with tomorrow's speech, we may actually have good reason to be cautiously optimistic about our economic future.
Of course, in this day and age, even preaching cautious optimism is a perfect way to be accused of naivete. Pessimism is very chic in the world of politics. Liberals and conservatives alike are prone to being hailed for "realism" when they issue cynical, critical, and even apocalyptic proclamations about the present and future (the only difference between both ideological groups being what subjects they select as fodder for their gloomy observations, assessments, and forecasts). Simultaneously, there is a knee-jerk impulse to assume that anyone who expresses optimism has either succumbed to ideological poisoning or is simply wanting of the perspective necessary to have the proper "balanced" outlook at the actual world around them.
Allow me to demonstrate this with a brief thought experiment. Pretend, for a moment, that we were in the inverse situation right now - that is, if the economy had WORSENED beyond any and all predictions, instead of improved. Do you honestly believe that there would be many voices saying that we shouldn't embrace this bad news as reflections of a new trend in reality? Would anyone say that although the economy was expected to decline, the fact that it has fallen so far so fast is probably an aberration? Or do you think it would have been considered more fashionable to rend our clothes, cover ourselves in ashes, and assume that the days of Hoover had returned?
The objective truth is that virtually every projection - by liberals as well as conservatives - held that the economy would be continuing its state of decline at this point. The fact that it has actually improved, however marginally, means that those assumptions were wrong. Since Obama's stimulus package is the only variable that can be realistically assumed to have caused the beginnings of this recovery, he deserves credit for what he has done; since it appears that Obama has found a clever new way of giving us more of the medicine that we now know is working, he deserves credit for what he is about to do (especially since lesss than one-third of the stimulus money already in place has been spent so far, meaning that its full effects haven't even begun to be made manifest). While none of this means that we have reached the end of our long national nightmare, it does - for the first time in more than a year - provide us with an empirically-verified and realistic source for optimism. There is an intelligent case to be made that the worst may be over, and an equally sound argument to be put forth that the economy will begin to grow again - slowly at first, perhaps, but with increasing acceleration.
For a long time experts on both sides of the political spectrum have predicted that this recession would forever change America's economic life, to say nothing of our place in the world, and that its continued deterioration would mark the doom of Obama's reelection effort in 2012. So widely and fervently has this claim been made that many have taken its truth for granted, ignoring in the process that similar proclamations were made during the recessions of the early 1980s and the early 1990s - both of which not only ended after a few years, but were followed by periods of tremendous economic growth, to say nothing of the resounding re-election of the presidents who presided over them (Ronald Reagan in 1984, Bill Clinton in 1996).
Of course, that doesn't mean that our recession will join its two predecessors and become a painful and frightening - but ultimately past - part of our national experience. What it means is that there are signs that this COULD plausibly happen. Indeed, if it weren't for the fact that such an assumption would justify that most unfashionable of outlooks - optimism - the consensus might even deem such an assumption to be - dare I say - realistic.
Monday, December 7, 2009
Understanding Analogies
I see it everywhere. The famous face of America's first black president, Barack Obama, with the grotesque scars and facepaint of The Joker (as depicted by Heath Ledger in the 2008 soon-to-be-classic The Dark Knight) transposed onto his own features. Beneath that image there is a single word: Socialist.
Now I have spent many blog articles explaining, in great detail, just why Barack Obama isn't a socialist, so I see no need to repeat myself here. Instead I want to point out why, even if Barack Obama WAS a socialist, that poster remains one of the most astonishingly stupid cartoons in the history of American politics.
First, some Political Satire 101: When you connect one prominent figure with another well-known individual (real or fictional), you presumably do so for the purpose of establishing an analogy, and an analogy is... well, let me turn to dictionary.com for the definition:
a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy
noun
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
Of course, the common thread linking Heath Ledger's Joker and Barack Obama - apart from the fact that they dominated the year 2008 in their various media - is a bit hard to make out on one's own. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), the creator of the Obama/Joker poster does that for us when he includes the word "Socialist" beneath the picture.
And this is where we have a problem. Because, you see, The Joker was not a Socialist. Not in the Christopher Nolan movie. Not in the Tim Burton movie. Not in the campy television show. Not in the original Bob Kane comic books. Not in the Frank Miller re-imagining. Not anywhere. Saying that Barack Obama is a Socialist and thus like The Joker makes about as much sense as saying that David Duke is a KKK-member and thus like Scrappy-Doo. Except, of course, that Obama is not actually a Socialist.
Yet if this tiny detail doesn't quell your desire to compare Obama to a Socialist, you needn't lose heart. There are plenty of individuals to whom you can compare him much more effectively. Why not brand Obama's features with the attributes of Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin, or... well heck, if you want to plumb the depths of historical infamy, why not Joseph Stalin? At least when the heinous zealots who call Obama a Nazi paint a tiny little mustache on him, they are at least making the correct visual connection.
I could end this article here, but I want to go one step further and ask the obvious question: Considering that there is no logical connection between The Joker and Socialism, why did the artist behind this painting choose to use The Joker as the archtype to attach to Obama's face (I know that the identity of the "artist" has been revealed, but I don't wish to dignify him by including his name - or, for that matter, an image of his opus - on this website)? He had a luxury of recognizable villains from which to choose, including not just relevant characters like Marx and Stalin, but a veritable plethora of complete non sequiturs (for which he presumably has a preference). Why not don Obama in a shiny lime mask and make him the Green Goblin, or slap a giant orange eye over his face and depict him as Sauron? Heck, you could even make a politically pertinent out of some of the otherwise out-of-left-field comparisons - affix bolts to his neck and put him in stitches, then claim he's a Frankenstein's monster made from liberal interest groups, or shove fangs in his mouth and have him being a blood-sucking Dracula draining taxpayers of their hard-earned money! I wouldn't agree with any of those political messages, but at least they would be coherent.
I do not know the person who chose this poster, nor do I associate with anyone who wishes to champion it; as such, I cannot speak authoritatively on their deeper motives for selecting this image. That said, it doesn't escape me that, of all the major fictional villains well-known to the American public, The Joker is the only one who wears white make-up. By comparing Obama to The Joker, these yahoos were thus given the opportunity to degrade him racially by putting him in white face. To me, the only motive that actually makes sense here is to humiliate him through the use of racism.
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't claim to have infallible mental faculties. What small comfort I have comes from knowing that at least I can construct a working analogy.
Now I have spent many blog articles explaining, in great detail, just why Barack Obama isn't a socialist, so I see no need to repeat myself here. Instead I want to point out why, even if Barack Obama WAS a socialist, that poster remains one of the most astonishingly stupid cartoons in the history of American politics.
First, some Political Satire 101: When you connect one prominent figure with another well-known individual (real or fictional), you presumably do so for the purpose of establishing an analogy, and an analogy is... well, let me turn to dictionary.com for the definition:
a⋅nal⋅o⋅gy
noun
a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based
Of course, the common thread linking Heath Ledger's Joker and Barack Obama - apart from the fact that they dominated the year 2008 in their various media - is a bit hard to make out on one's own. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it), the creator of the Obama/Joker poster does that for us when he includes the word "Socialist" beneath the picture.
And this is where we have a problem. Because, you see, The Joker was not a Socialist. Not in the Christopher Nolan movie. Not in the Tim Burton movie. Not in the campy television show. Not in the original Bob Kane comic books. Not in the Frank Miller re-imagining. Not anywhere. Saying that Barack Obama is a Socialist and thus like The Joker makes about as much sense as saying that David Duke is a KKK-member and thus like Scrappy-Doo. Except, of course, that Obama is not actually a Socialist.
Yet if this tiny detail doesn't quell your desire to compare Obama to a Socialist, you needn't lose heart. There are plenty of individuals to whom you can compare him much more effectively. Why not brand Obama's features with the attributes of Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin, or... well heck, if you want to plumb the depths of historical infamy, why not Joseph Stalin? At least when the heinous zealots who call Obama a Nazi paint a tiny little mustache on him, they are at least making the correct visual connection.
I could end this article here, but I want to go one step further and ask the obvious question: Considering that there is no logical connection between The Joker and Socialism, why did the artist behind this painting choose to use The Joker as the archtype to attach to Obama's face (I know that the identity of the "artist" has been revealed, but I don't wish to dignify him by including his name - or, for that matter, an image of his opus - on this website)? He had a luxury of recognizable villains from which to choose, including not just relevant characters like Marx and Stalin, but a veritable plethora of complete non sequiturs (for which he presumably has a preference). Why not don Obama in a shiny lime mask and make him the Green Goblin, or slap a giant orange eye over his face and depict him as Sauron? Heck, you could even make a politically pertinent out of some of the otherwise out-of-left-field comparisons - affix bolts to his neck and put him in stitches, then claim he's a Frankenstein's monster made from liberal interest groups, or shove fangs in his mouth and have him being a blood-sucking Dracula draining taxpayers of their hard-earned money! I wouldn't agree with any of those political messages, but at least they would be coherent.
I do not know the person who chose this poster, nor do I associate with anyone who wishes to champion it; as such, I cannot speak authoritatively on their deeper motives for selecting this image. That said, it doesn't escape me that, of all the major fictional villains well-known to the American public, The Joker is the only one who wears white make-up. By comparing Obama to The Joker, these yahoos were thus given the opportunity to degrade him racially by putting him in white face. To me, the only motive that actually makes sense here is to humiliate him through the use of racism.
Of course, I could be wrong. I don't claim to have infallible mental faculties. What small comfort I have comes from knowing that at least I can construct a working analogy.
Harry Reid & The Hard Truth
'Slow down, stop everything, let's start over.'
You think you've heard these same excuses before? You're right. In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough' -- about slavery. When women wanted to vote [they said] 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that -- the day isn't quite right...'
When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.
Those were the words spoken by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) earlier today. They have unleashed a firestorm of controversy, all of which focuses on how the outrage felt by right-wingers and the so-called "centrists" who have aligned with them, and none of which pays any attention to whether the historical comparison is apt.
I happen to think that it fits beautifully. Of course, I do have a bias in feeling that way, as I made a very similar claim roughly three weeks ago during the "Thinkin' Lincoln" argument:
Back in Lincoln's day, there were millions of Americans who argued that anti-slavery advocates wished to take away the slaveowner's freedom. The idea that one should have the "freedom" to own another human being is rightfully scorned as both logically absurd and morally bankrupt today, but we must not forget that the reason so many intelligent and wel-intentioned people believed it back then was because conventional wisdom held that being pro-slavery was a legitimate point-of-view... and as such, identifying its obvious flaws (as men like Lincoln did regularly) was regarded as gauche at best, and downright tyrannical at worst (remember what John Wilkes Booth shouted immediately after taking Lincoln's life).
Today there are many who believe that a moral and logical case can be made in favor of people not receiving the health care they need because of the capriciousness of an insurance company or because of their meager financial circumstances; that it is a greater wrong for the rich to pay more in taxes than for the needy to receive decent jobs; that a fair and reasonable position exists for further deregulating banks and Wall Street firms despite the economic collapse their fatuous cupidity caused. Just like the pro-slavery forces of Lincoln's day, these people are either incapable or unwilling to see through the chimera of conventional wisdom and recognize the horrifying ridiculousness of what they believe. Today we have wolves savagely fighting for their freedom to kill sheep, and many sheep being mesmerized into supporting the very wolves who wish to murder them. The wolves' argument is no better today - logically or morally - than it was in 1864, and I am willing to bet that Americans in 2154 will be just as dumbfounded by the wolf defenders of our time as we are by the wolf defenders of Lincoln's.
Of course, I was addressing the rationalizations used by right-wingers to defend positions that are morally and logically incompatible with the basic precepts of humanitarianism and democracy. Reid was drawing a comparison between the tactics used by the obstructionists of yesteryear and those who confront us today. Ultimately, though, the fundamental point is the same: Those who wish to deny others their basic human rights - be it the right to equal participation in the political process regardless of one's gender, the right to equal treatment regardless of race, or the right to quality health care regardless of financial status - use strikingly similar rhetoric and strategies. This is not a coincidence.
You think you've heard these same excuses before? You're right. In this country there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early. Let's wait. Things aren't bad enough' -- about slavery. When women wanted to vote [they said] 'Slow down, there will be a better day to do that -- the day isn't quite right...'
When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.
Those were the words spoken by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) earlier today. They have unleashed a firestorm of controversy, all of which focuses on how the outrage felt by right-wingers and the so-called "centrists" who have aligned with them, and none of which pays any attention to whether the historical comparison is apt.
I happen to think that it fits beautifully. Of course, I do have a bias in feeling that way, as I made a very similar claim roughly three weeks ago during the "Thinkin' Lincoln" argument:
Back in Lincoln's day, there were millions of Americans who argued that anti-slavery advocates wished to take away the slaveowner's freedom. The idea that one should have the "freedom" to own another human being is rightfully scorned as both logically absurd and morally bankrupt today, but we must not forget that the reason so many intelligent and wel-intentioned people believed it back then was because conventional wisdom held that being pro-slavery was a legitimate point-of-view... and as such, identifying its obvious flaws (as men like Lincoln did regularly) was regarded as gauche at best, and downright tyrannical at worst (remember what John Wilkes Booth shouted immediately after taking Lincoln's life).
Today there are many who believe that a moral and logical case can be made in favor of people not receiving the health care they need because of the capriciousness of an insurance company or because of their meager financial circumstances; that it is a greater wrong for the rich to pay more in taxes than for the needy to receive decent jobs; that a fair and reasonable position exists for further deregulating banks and Wall Street firms despite the economic collapse their fatuous cupidity caused. Just like the pro-slavery forces of Lincoln's day, these people are either incapable or unwilling to see through the chimera of conventional wisdom and recognize the horrifying ridiculousness of what they believe. Today we have wolves savagely fighting for their freedom to kill sheep, and many sheep being mesmerized into supporting the very wolves who wish to murder them. The wolves' argument is no better today - logically or morally - than it was in 1864, and I am willing to bet that Americans in 2154 will be just as dumbfounded by the wolf defenders of our time as we are by the wolf defenders of Lincoln's.
Of course, I was addressing the rationalizations used by right-wingers to defend positions that are morally and logically incompatible with the basic precepts of humanitarianism and democracy. Reid was drawing a comparison between the tactics used by the obstructionists of yesteryear and those who confront us today. Ultimately, though, the fundamental point is the same: Those who wish to deny others their basic human rights - be it the right to equal participation in the political process regardless of one's gender, the right to equal treatment regardless of race, or the right to quality health care regardless of financial status - use strikingly similar rhetoric and strategies. This is not a coincidence.
Saturday, December 5, 2009
Climategate Discussion
I posted the following comment on my Facebook status:
Jon Stewart on Climategate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8
The scientific method depends on the veracity of data and the openness of the questioning process; once those pillars are compromised, the entire edifice is weakened, thereby empowering those with a vested interest in its destruction. That is why every scientist who discussed altering data or persecuting climate change critics must be fired.
Here is the conversation that followed:
Morgan Kanter
Not all data should be open, though -- at least not until publication. There's a very real fear of getting scooped in the world of science, so it's kind of important to play your hand close to your chest.
Susan Zells Ingber
Yes, with increased media pressures for scientists to give a yes-no answer and its impact on funding amidst an extremely competitive grant process, scientists are more vulnerable than ever. These guys were pressured to fudge data to keep their funding. The public needs to know that longitudinal studies like these do not yield immediate definitive results. The scientists, however, should not be fudging data. I just wish there were more education (esp. bioethics) for the public and regulations/protections for the research community.
Susan Zells Ingber
Unfortunately, the scientists don't take bioethics seriously enough when there's so much money at stake.
Matthew Rozsa
My problem with the Climategate revelations is that it shows scientists actively silencing, even persecuting, any colleagues who disagree with their conclusions about global warming. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the majority view on the subject, the only way for scientific inquiry to maintain its integrity is if all points of view are given fair voice.
Now there are some who might say that this philosophy would empower Christian fundamentalists who want to debunk evolution by injecting theological convictions into scientific canon, or bring us back to the good ol' days in which epileptic seizures were attributed to demonic possession. What these individuals ignore, though, is that global warming skeptics - whether they are right, wrong, or indifferent - aren't basing their assertions on poorly-disguised religious dogma. These are men and women who, using the same empirical methodology employed by those who believe in global warming, have come to the conclusion that it is either non-existent or not anthropogenic in origin. Creationists and other right-wing ideologues are guilty of trying to foist non-scientific belief systems into the realm of science so as to promote a personal agenda; global warming skeptics like Steve McIntyre and Richard Lindzen, on the other hand, use the scientific method - be it as statisticians or atmospheric physicists - when coming to conclusions that disagree with those of the academic "in crowd". Because they are playing by the same rules of legitimate scientific discourse as their more institutionally accepted colleagues, they have the right to be given a fair voice in the forum of debate on these subjects. Any and all efforts to marginalize or punish them are not just morally reprehensible; they are downright unscientific.
Matthew Rozsa
PS: The fact that the mainstream media has been paying scant attention to the Climategate revelations does not do us any real service. Because global warming denial is so closely associated with the most radical elements of the political right-wing, these news outlets are no doubt afraid that giving air time to a story that validates one of the far right's most strident assertions would somehow legitimize them as a movement. To this point-of-view, I have a simple reply:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
That quote was uttered by John Adams when he defended the British soldiers accused of wrongdoing during the Boston Massacre of 1770. Note that Adams was a strong believer in the cause of American colonial independence from the British Empire at this time, and the soldiers on trial had been accused of monstrously murdering innocent colonists. Siding against those soldiers and inflaming public opinion against them (as Adams' cousin Samuel had prudently done) would no doubt have been far more beneficial to the revolutionary cause than acknowledging the simple facts of the case - namely, that the soldiers had been provoked and frightened by an angry mob of colonists, and had only lashed out in understandable self-defense. Even so, Adams realized that the instant he compromised the value of truth and integrity in the name of his larger cause, he would dishonor not only himself, but the cause for which he fought. As such, he defended the British soldiers and got them acquitted of their crimes... and we still had our revolution, didn't we?
Jon Stewart on Climategate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgPUpIBWGp8
The scientific method depends on the veracity of data and the openness of the questioning process; once those pillars are compromised, the entire edifice is weakened, thereby empowering those with a vested interest in its destruction. That is why every scientist who discussed altering data or persecuting climate change critics must be fired.
Here is the conversation that followed:
Morgan Kanter
Not all data should be open, though -- at least not until publication. There's a very real fear of getting scooped in the world of science, so it's kind of important to play your hand close to your chest.
Susan Zells Ingber
Yes, with increased media pressures for scientists to give a yes-no answer and its impact on funding amidst an extremely competitive grant process, scientists are more vulnerable than ever. These guys were pressured to fudge data to keep their funding. The public needs to know that longitudinal studies like these do not yield immediate definitive results. The scientists, however, should not be fudging data. I just wish there were more education (esp. bioethics) for the public and regulations/protections for the research community.
Susan Zells Ingber
Unfortunately, the scientists don't take bioethics seriously enough when there's so much money at stake.
Matthew Rozsa
My problem with the Climategate revelations is that it shows scientists actively silencing, even persecuting, any colleagues who disagree with their conclusions about global warming. Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with the majority view on the subject, the only way for scientific inquiry to maintain its integrity is if all points of view are given fair voice.
Now there are some who might say that this philosophy would empower Christian fundamentalists who want to debunk evolution by injecting theological convictions into scientific canon, or bring us back to the good ol' days in which epileptic seizures were attributed to demonic possession. What these individuals ignore, though, is that global warming skeptics - whether they are right, wrong, or indifferent - aren't basing their assertions on poorly-disguised religious dogma. These are men and women who, using the same empirical methodology employed by those who believe in global warming, have come to the conclusion that it is either non-existent or not anthropogenic in origin. Creationists and other right-wing ideologues are guilty of trying to foist non-scientific belief systems into the realm of science so as to promote a personal agenda; global warming skeptics like Steve McIntyre and Richard Lindzen, on the other hand, use the scientific method - be it as statisticians or atmospheric physicists - when coming to conclusions that disagree with those of the academic "in crowd". Because they are playing by the same rules of legitimate scientific discourse as their more institutionally accepted colleagues, they have the right to be given a fair voice in the forum of debate on these subjects. Any and all efforts to marginalize or punish them are not just morally reprehensible; they are downright unscientific.
Matthew Rozsa
PS: The fact that the mainstream media has been paying scant attention to the Climategate revelations does not do us any real service. Because global warming denial is so closely associated with the most radical elements of the political right-wing, these news outlets are no doubt afraid that giving air time to a story that validates one of the far right's most strident assertions would somehow legitimize them as a movement. To this point-of-view, I have a simple reply:
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
That quote was uttered by John Adams when he defended the British soldiers accused of wrongdoing during the Boston Massacre of 1770. Note that Adams was a strong believer in the cause of American colonial independence from the British Empire at this time, and the soldiers on trial had been accused of monstrously murdering innocent colonists. Siding against those soldiers and inflaming public opinion against them (as Adams' cousin Samuel had prudently done) would no doubt have been far more beneficial to the revolutionary cause than acknowledging the simple facts of the case - namely, that the soldiers had been provoked and frightened by an angry mob of colonists, and had only lashed out in understandable self-defense. Even so, Adams realized that the instant he compromised the value of truth and integrity in the name of his larger cause, he would dishonor not only himself, but the cause for which he fought. As such, he defended the British soldiers and got them acquitted of their crimes... and we still had our revolution, didn't we?
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The Lesson of Jefferson, Hamilton, & 1840
Left-wingers will always claim that America is, at heart, a liberal country, while right-wingers will always claim that America is, at heart, a conservative country.
Both sides are right in their assumption that America has a single philosophy which unites virtually all of its citizens, and they are even correct in their implicit understanding that the philosophy in question is the same now as it was back in 1776, and has remained unwaveringly constant from that point to this one. Where they err is in assuming that that philosophy necessarily manifests itself in the complex ideologies of liberalism or conservatism. In fact, Americans are not, by default, either of these things. What Americans believe in today - and what, as we shall soon see, they have always believed in - is populism.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: 1 pop·u·list
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people
What every major political movement in American history has in common is its ability to successfully draw its given ideology - regardless of what that precise ideology entails on economic, social, international, or cultural issues - back to the basic precept of populism. This fact became clear in the early 19th Century, when the new American republic developed its first two major political parties - the Democratic-Republican party, as founded by Thomas Jefferson, and the Federalist party, as founded by Alexander Hamilton. The principles for which Jefferson's political organization stood, as articulated by the Sage of Monticello in 1776, were very clearly populist:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Federalist Party, meanwhile, did not stand for populism, as indicated by the foundational premise given its most perfect articulation by Alexander Hamilton during an early Constitutional Convention in 1780:
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give, therefore, to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second...
If Jefferson thus laid the foundations for American populism, what term could be best used to describe Hamilton's belief system?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: elit·ism
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
Our first president, George Washington, refused to affiliate himself with either of these political movements, and so served for eight years as America's only true non-partisan leader. Although his successor, John Adams, did openly associate with the Federalist Party, his election in 1796 was due less to ideology than to his clear status as Washington's heir apparent. It wasn't until 1800 - a year during which the nation's disparate political factions weren't held together by the common leadership of the widely revered Washington, and thus couldn't result in the easy elections of Washington in 1789 and 1792 and his vice president in 1796 - that ideology became front and center in the eyes of the voting public, with Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans as proud populists opposing Adams, Hamilton, and the openly elitist Federalists.
This didn't work out for the Federalists. After losing five presidential elections in a row, the Federalist Party dissolved completely, inadvertantly ceding to the Democratic-Republicans a decade-long period of unchallenged one-party rule. By the time they rebounded - first as the National Republican Party and then, when that organization also failed, as the Whig Party - an axiom of American politics was beginning to emerge. The only way to win elections was by presenting one's own organization and candidates as being aligned with the interests of the people, while presumably depicting one's adversaries as being in some way elitist or aristocratic.
1840 was when that finally became unavoidably clear, for that was the year in which the Whig Party finally won a presidential election - in 1840, forty-four years since their last legitimate national victory. They pulled off this incredible feat by eschewing any and all discussion of issues, instead focusing solely on how their candidate, William Henry Harrison, had been born in a log cabin while his opponent, Martin Van Buren, was a snob. The fact that Harrison had really been born into a wealthy plantation aristocracy, while Van Buren was the son of a poor family who worked his way up from scratch, proved politically inconsequential; the reality that Harrison supported economic policies which would benefit the wealthy upper class at the expense of America's farmers and laborers, while Van Buren advocated the same Jeffersonian/Jacksonian ideals that average Americans had supported and benefitted from for forty years, was overlooked. Populism in style mattered far more in winning elections than populism in policy substance. It was a lesson that all observers and players of the American political scene, past and present, learned very well. What's more, it is the principle that has fueled the creation of all the major ideo-political coalitions throughout American political history, from the Jeffersonian Era (dominated by the Democratic-Republican Party, 1800-1828), Jacksonian Era (dominated by the Democratic Party, 1828-1860), and Civil War/Gilded Age (dominated by the Republican Party, 1860-1901) of the nineteenth century to the Progressive Era (dominated by liberals in the Republican and Democratic parties, 1901-1920*), FDR Era (dominated by the Democratic Party, 1932-1980), and Reagan Era (dominated by the Republican Party, 1980-2008) of the twentieth.
This brings me to the present. As Barack Obama and the Democratic Party fights against Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Republican Party for America's political soul, a great deal of attention is placed on the ideological substance behind the positions taken by each party. While I don't deny the importance of this, I feel that politically, its relevance is grossly overstated. Political success or failure in this country has historically been determined by the effectiveness with which each party and its candidates connects its own image and ideas to the populist roots of American democracy. As the 2010 and 2012 elections approach, this is a factor that we all should keep in mind.
* - There was a brief interlude, between the Progressive Era and the FDR Era, in which a Second Gilded Age came about. This came to an abrupt end with the advent of the Great Depression and the first election of Franklin Roosevelt.
Both sides are right in their assumption that America has a single philosophy which unites virtually all of its citizens, and they are even correct in their implicit understanding that the philosophy in question is the same now as it was back in 1776, and has remained unwaveringly constant from that point to this one. Where they err is in assuming that that philosophy necessarily manifests itself in the complex ideologies of liberalism or conservatism. In fact, Americans are not, by default, either of these things. What Americans believe in today - and what, as we shall soon see, they have always believed in - is populism.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: 1 pop·u·list
1 : a member of a political party claiming to represent the common people
What every major political movement in American history has in common is its ability to successfully draw its given ideology - regardless of what that precise ideology entails on economic, social, international, or cultural issues - back to the basic precept of populism. This fact became clear in the early 19th Century, when the new American republic developed its first two major political parties - the Democratic-Republican party, as founded by Thomas Jefferson, and the Federalist party, as founded by Alexander Hamilton. The principles for which Jefferson's political organization stood, as articulated by the Sage of Monticello in 1776, were very clearly populist:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
The Federalist Party, meanwhile, did not stand for populism, as indicated by the foundational premise given its most perfect articulation by Alexander Hamilton during an early Constitutional Convention in 1780:
All communities divide themselves into the few and the many. The first are rich and well-born, the other the mass of the people... The people are turbulent and changing; they seldom judge or determine right. Give, therefore, to the first class a distinct, permanent share in the government. They will check the unsteadiness of the second...
If Jefferson thus laid the foundations for American populism, what term could be best used to describe Hamilton's belief system?
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary
Main Entry: elit·ism
1 : leadership or rule by an elite
Our first president, George Washington, refused to affiliate himself with either of these political movements, and so served for eight years as America's only true non-partisan leader. Although his successor, John Adams, did openly associate with the Federalist Party, his election in 1796 was due less to ideology than to his clear status as Washington's heir apparent. It wasn't until 1800 - a year during which the nation's disparate political factions weren't held together by the common leadership of the widely revered Washington, and thus couldn't result in the easy elections of Washington in 1789 and 1792 and his vice president in 1796 - that ideology became front and center in the eyes of the voting public, with Jefferson and his Democratic-Republicans as proud populists opposing Adams, Hamilton, and the openly elitist Federalists.
This didn't work out for the Federalists. After losing five presidential elections in a row, the Federalist Party dissolved completely, inadvertantly ceding to the Democratic-Republicans a decade-long period of unchallenged one-party rule. By the time they rebounded - first as the National Republican Party and then, when that organization also failed, as the Whig Party - an axiom of American politics was beginning to emerge. The only way to win elections was by presenting one's own organization and candidates as being aligned with the interests of the people, while presumably depicting one's adversaries as being in some way elitist or aristocratic.
1840 was when that finally became unavoidably clear, for that was the year in which the Whig Party finally won a presidential election - in 1840, forty-four years since their last legitimate national victory. They pulled off this incredible feat by eschewing any and all discussion of issues, instead focusing solely on how their candidate, William Henry Harrison, had been born in a log cabin while his opponent, Martin Van Buren, was a snob. The fact that Harrison had really been born into a wealthy plantation aristocracy, while Van Buren was the son of a poor family who worked his way up from scratch, proved politically inconsequential; the reality that Harrison supported economic policies which would benefit the wealthy upper class at the expense of America's farmers and laborers, while Van Buren advocated the same Jeffersonian/Jacksonian ideals that average Americans had supported and benefitted from for forty years, was overlooked. Populism in style mattered far more in winning elections than populism in policy substance. It was a lesson that all observers and players of the American political scene, past and present, learned very well. What's more, it is the principle that has fueled the creation of all the major ideo-political coalitions throughout American political history, from the Jeffersonian Era (dominated by the Democratic-Republican Party, 1800-1828), Jacksonian Era (dominated by the Democratic Party, 1828-1860), and Civil War/Gilded Age (dominated by the Republican Party, 1860-1901) of the nineteenth century to the Progressive Era (dominated by liberals in the Republican and Democratic parties, 1901-1920*), FDR Era (dominated by the Democratic Party, 1932-1980), and Reagan Era (dominated by the Republican Party, 1980-2008) of the twentieth.
This brings me to the present. As Barack Obama and the Democratic Party fights against Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Republican Party for America's political soul, a great deal of attention is placed on the ideological substance behind the positions taken by each party. While I don't deny the importance of this, I feel that politically, its relevance is grossly overstated. Political success or failure in this country has historically been determined by the effectiveness with which each party and its candidates connects its own image and ideas to the populist roots of American democracy. As the 2010 and 2012 elections approach, this is a factor that we all should keep in mind.
* - There was a brief interlude, between the Progressive Era and the FDR Era, in which a Second Gilded Age came about. This came to an abrupt end with the advent of the Great Depression and the first election of Franklin Roosevelt.
Another Thought on Huckabee
The following news bulletin just appeared on Politico.com:
Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor from Arkansas who has his own Fox show, told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that a 2012 presidential bid is "less than likely" and depends on whether Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, keeps liking his show.
"The reason I wouldn’t is that this Fox gig I’ve got is really wonderful, " he said, talking about whether or not he would get in the race given that he is a GOP front runner according to most recent polls. "Jumping into the pool, you gottta make sure there is some water in it."
Huckabee said that GOP leaders would be foolhardy to think that President Barack Obama is an easy mark in 2012, given the example of President Bill Clinton's easy re-election for a second term after a bruising midterm in 1994.
And Huckabee said that during his 2008 campaign, he never got the backing of the GOP establishment.
"The Republican Party needs to unite in 2012," he said.
There is a delicious (and politically telling) irony here: The very fact that Huckabee has made it seem like he isn't interested in running is the greatest possible indication that that is precisely what he intends to do. There are several reasons for this:
1) Presidential aspirants have historically made a point of disavowing any interest in their would-be prize this early in the game, if for no other reason than seeming overly-eager for it can turn off many potential supporters. This isn't to say that I doubt his sincerity when he speaks fondly of his current gig with FoxNews; after all, he earned his keep as a pastor and part-time televangelist before being elected Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas in 1994, and no doubt receives genuine joy from preaching. But...
2) The FoxNews position is too perfect a political instrument for me to believe that Huckabee doesn't plan on using it. By having a weekly show on the television network preferred by his party's politically active base of right-wing ideologues, he is able to maintain constant visibility in the minds of the men and women who will no doubt constitute a great portion of the 2012 primary electorate. At the same time, by avoiding venturing too far out of the waters of the politically safe within the parameters of his program (I have watched a few episodes, and am genuinely impressed with the delicate tightrope he walks between feeding the cravings of the zealots without putting his foot in his mouth), he makes sure that the high name recognition he maintains is a predominantly positive one. This is in stark contrast with Sarah Palin, whose extremism, penchant for faux pas, and media overexposure are likely to cause the public to burn out on her by the time the primaries kick off, and Mitt Romney, whose much lower profile and intent solicitation of support from the party establishment indicates a strategy that fundamentally misunderstands the populist undercurrent that will likely decide which candidate obtains the GOP nomination.
Just a thought.
Mike Huckabee, the former Republican governor from Arkansas who has his own Fox show, told Chris Wallace on "Fox News Sunday" that a 2012 presidential bid is "less than likely" and depends on whether Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News, keeps liking his show.
"The reason I wouldn’t is that this Fox gig I’ve got is really wonderful, " he said, talking about whether or not he would get in the race given that he is a GOP front runner according to most recent polls. "Jumping into the pool, you gottta make sure there is some water in it."
Huckabee said that GOP leaders would be foolhardy to think that President Barack Obama is an easy mark in 2012, given the example of President Bill Clinton's easy re-election for a second term after a bruising midterm in 1994.
And Huckabee said that during his 2008 campaign, he never got the backing of the GOP establishment.
"The Republican Party needs to unite in 2012," he said.
There is a delicious (and politically telling) irony here: The very fact that Huckabee has made it seem like he isn't interested in running is the greatest possible indication that that is precisely what he intends to do. There are several reasons for this:
1) Presidential aspirants have historically made a point of disavowing any interest in their would-be prize this early in the game, if for no other reason than seeming overly-eager for it can turn off many potential supporters. This isn't to say that I doubt his sincerity when he speaks fondly of his current gig with FoxNews; after all, he earned his keep as a pastor and part-time televangelist before being elected Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas in 1994, and no doubt receives genuine joy from preaching. But...
2) The FoxNews position is too perfect a political instrument for me to believe that Huckabee doesn't plan on using it. By having a weekly show on the television network preferred by his party's politically active base of right-wing ideologues, he is able to maintain constant visibility in the minds of the men and women who will no doubt constitute a great portion of the 2012 primary electorate. At the same time, by avoiding venturing too far out of the waters of the politically safe within the parameters of his program (I have watched a few episodes, and am genuinely impressed with the delicate tightrope he walks between feeding the cravings of the zealots without putting his foot in his mouth), he makes sure that the high name recognition he maintains is a predominantly positive one. This is in stark contrast with Sarah Palin, whose extremism, penchant for faux pas, and media overexposure are likely to cause the public to burn out on her by the time the primaries kick off, and Mitt Romney, whose much lower profile and intent solicitation of support from the party establishment indicates a strategy that fundamentally misunderstands the populist undercurrent that will likely decide which candidate obtains the GOP nomination.
Just a thought.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Prepare for a Coronary
A conservative wrote an op-ed piece with which I am in wholehearted agreement. No, I am not exaggerating, and no, this isn't one of those rare occasions when a conservative has temporarily defected and taken a left-wing position on an issue. Although I fall to the left on policy matters 99% of the time, that still does mean that - on one out of every hundred occasions - I will see myself nodding at the observations of someone who is right-of-center. This is one of those occasions.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/major-nidal-hasan-had-an-enabler/
Please read the article before looking at my addendum:
Because I agree with every comment made in this piece (and yes, every single one), I am only going to elaborate on the specific point which the author does not address, and which matters a great deal to me as a proud and passionate liberal:
Liberalism, for all of its complexity and nuance, ultimately boils down to a very simple opinion, one best articulated by Thomas Jefferson in 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
When you combine that message with its various elaborations and manifestations, most notably those in the Bill of Rights (James Madison, 1789), the Bank Veto (Andrew Jackson, 1832), the Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln, 1863), the Fourteen Points (Woodrow Wilson, 1918), the Economic Bill of Rights (Franklin Roosevelt, 1944), and the I Have A Dream speech (Martin Luther King, 1963), one gets a pretty comprehensive overview of what the liberal philosophy entails.
In our unending quest to create perfect social justice, liberals have become highly sensitive to the manner in which various forms of bigotry have undermined the freedom and quality of life for countless racial, religious, and sexual minorities. It is from our awareness of this problem, and our consequent desire to successfully address it, that political correctness was born.
Yet even though the instinct which gave birth to political correctness is commendable, it has at times manifested itself in a way that is not only socially unhealthy, but actually contradicts its fundamental objectives. If protecting the reputation of a given minority group means that we have to look away as members of that group violate the human rights of others, then are we not violating the most fundamental beliefs of liberalism? If we allow the fear of being labelled with the giant "b-word", bigot, to silence us when someone in a given minority group, as a result of one of the attributes of his or her group, violates the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" held by others, then are we not betraying our most important values in a manner only befitting abject cowards?
In my mind, there are two kinds of liberals: "cultural liberals", or those who believe in the left-wing ideology because they wish to identify with the specific larger movement it represents, and "philosophical liberals", or those who associate with the political left because they share the values of its greatest champions (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, King) and wish to see the dreams of those men someday become one with reality. Because political correctness has become ingrained in the cultural movement that accompanies ideological liberalism, cultural liberals will frequently fight tooth and nail against any effort to roll back political correctness, since the preservation of the accouterments of the subculture with which they identify is far more important to them than the attainment of a social and moral ideal. Ideological liberals, on the other hand, will recognize that when undeniable facts merge with unavoidable wrongs, and lead you to a conclusion that is in perfect keeping with the liberal ideology but in contradiction with the cultural mores advocated by some members of the left, the best thing to do is the right thing to do - be a true liberal and fight for human rights.
In this situation, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Nidal Malik Hasan having been a Muslim terrorist who, based on his interpretation of the tenets of his faith, decided to murder fourteen people. The evidence also makes it painfully clear that the military missed many opportunities to bring him to justice due to its fear of being accused of bigotry. Therefore, the way to prevent future bloodshed such as this will be to create an environment in which ALL soldiers are forced to adhere to a strict code of personal conduct - and one in which any infraction, regardless of whether it treads on the sensitive nerves of political correctness, leads to severe consequences. Likewise, it is important for society as a whole to recognize that there is a middle ground between hating Muslims as a whole and feeling that any criticism of Islamic terrorists is out of bounds. Just as we do not hesitate to condemn the Christian right-wingers who bomb abortion clinics and the militant Zionists who oppress Palestinians, so too should we show no reluctance to vehemently denounce the Muslims who murder Americans and Israelis and Indians, or who brutally oppress women and homosexuals, or who impose drastic censorship laws and kill freedom of speech when it contradicts the tenets of their faith. To do otherwise is worse than hypocritical; it's un-liberal.
http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/11/26/major-nidal-hasan-had-an-enabler/
Please read the article before looking at my addendum:
Because I agree with every comment made in this piece (and yes, every single one), I am only going to elaborate on the specific point which the author does not address, and which matters a great deal to me as a proud and passionate liberal:
Liberalism, for all of its complexity and nuance, ultimately boils down to a very simple opinion, one best articulated by Thomas Jefferson in 1776:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
When you combine that message with its various elaborations and manifestations, most notably those in the Bill of Rights (James Madison, 1789), the Bank Veto (Andrew Jackson, 1832), the Gettysburg Address (Abraham Lincoln, 1863), the Fourteen Points (Woodrow Wilson, 1918), the Economic Bill of Rights (Franklin Roosevelt, 1944), and the I Have A Dream speech (Martin Luther King, 1963), one gets a pretty comprehensive overview of what the liberal philosophy entails.
In our unending quest to create perfect social justice, liberals have become highly sensitive to the manner in which various forms of bigotry have undermined the freedom and quality of life for countless racial, religious, and sexual minorities. It is from our awareness of this problem, and our consequent desire to successfully address it, that political correctness was born.
Yet even though the instinct which gave birth to political correctness is commendable, it has at times manifested itself in a way that is not only socially unhealthy, but actually contradicts its fundamental objectives. If protecting the reputation of a given minority group means that we have to look away as members of that group violate the human rights of others, then are we not violating the most fundamental beliefs of liberalism? If we allow the fear of being labelled with the giant "b-word", bigot, to silence us when someone in a given minority group, as a result of one of the attributes of his or her group, violates the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" held by others, then are we not betraying our most important values in a manner only befitting abject cowards?
In my mind, there are two kinds of liberals: "cultural liberals", or those who believe in the left-wing ideology because they wish to identify with the specific larger movement it represents, and "philosophical liberals", or those who associate with the political left because they share the values of its greatest champions (Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, King) and wish to see the dreams of those men someday become one with reality. Because political correctness has become ingrained in the cultural movement that accompanies ideological liberalism, cultural liberals will frequently fight tooth and nail against any effort to roll back political correctness, since the preservation of the accouterments of the subculture with which they identify is far more important to them than the attainment of a social and moral ideal. Ideological liberals, on the other hand, will recognize that when undeniable facts merge with unavoidable wrongs, and lead you to a conclusion that is in perfect keeping with the liberal ideology but in contradiction with the cultural mores advocated by some members of the left, the best thing to do is the right thing to do - be a true liberal and fight for human rights.
In this situation, the evidence overwhelmingly points to Nidal Malik Hasan having been a Muslim terrorist who, based on his interpretation of the tenets of his faith, decided to murder fourteen people. The evidence also makes it painfully clear that the military missed many opportunities to bring him to justice due to its fear of being accused of bigotry. Therefore, the way to prevent future bloodshed such as this will be to create an environment in which ALL soldiers are forced to adhere to a strict code of personal conduct - and one in which any infraction, regardless of whether it treads on the sensitive nerves of political correctness, leads to severe consequences. Likewise, it is important for society as a whole to recognize that there is a middle ground between hating Muslims as a whole and feeling that any criticism of Islamic terrorists is out of bounds. Just as we do not hesitate to condemn the Christian right-wingers who bomb abortion clinics and the militant Zionists who oppress Palestinians, so too should we show no reluctance to vehemently denounce the Muslims who murder Americans and Israelis and Indians, or who brutally oppress women and homosexuals, or who impose drastic censorship laws and kill freedom of speech when it contradicts the tenets of their faith. To do otherwise is worse than hypocritical; it's un-liberal.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Precedential Presidents
In honor of the first Thanksgiving to be held during the presidency of an African-American, I have decided to compile a list of other "Precedential Presidents". Below are the presidents who broke the barriers of prejudice that barred various oppressed groups from serving in the cabinet, on the Supreme Court, and either a heartbeat away from or within the White House. While frequently the men and women chosen by these presidents and presidential candidates are the ones celebrated, I think it is important to remember that it was the courage of the statesmen who selected them that made their advancement possible. Enjoy!
Cabinet Members:
First Jew: Theodore Roosevelt (R) - Appointed Oscar Straus, 1906
First Woman: Franklin Roosevelt (D) - Appointed Frances Perkins, 1933
First African-American: Lyndon Johnson (D) - Appointed Robert Weaver, 1966
First Latino: Ronald Reagan (R) - Appointed Lauro Cavazos, 1988
Supreme Court Judges:
First Catholic: Andrew Jackson (D) - Appointed Roger Taney, 1836
First Jew: Woodrow Wilson (D) - Appointed Louis Brandeis, 1916
First African-American: Lyndon Johnson (D) - Appointed Thurgood Marshall, 1967
First Woman: Ronald Reagan (R) - Appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981
First Latino: Barack Obama (D) - Appointed Sonia Sotomayor, 2009
Vice Presidential Candidates:
First Polish American: Hubert Humphrey (D) - Selected Edmund Muskie, 1968
First Woman: Walter Mondale (D) - Selected Geraldine Ferraro, 1984
First Italian American: Walter Mondale (D) - Selected Geraldine Ferraro, 1984
First Jew: Albert Gore (D) - Selected Joseph Lieberman, 2000
Vice Presidents:
First Native American: Herbert Hoover (R) - Selected Charles Curtis, 1928
First Greek American: Richard Nixon (R) - Selected Spiro Agnew, 1968
Presidential Candidates:
First Quaker: Herbert Hoover (R) - 1928
First Catholic: Alfred Smith (D) - 1928
First Greek American: Michael Dukakis (D) - 1988
Presidents:
First Catholic: John Kennedy (D) - 1960
First African-American: Barack Obama (D) - 2008
Addenda:
1) Roger Taney, as Secretary of the Treasury under Andrew Jackson, was the first Catholic to serve in a presidential cabinet OF WHOM I AM AWARE. There may have been other Catholics who preceded him, though, which is why I did not feel comfortable putting his name down.
2) Although the argument has been made that Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, should be considered the first Jewish presidential candidate, there are several factors leaning against such a judgment. Goldwater's only relationship to the Jewish community was the fact that his father was Jewish by birth and religion. That said, this same father converted to Episcopalianism before Goldwater was born and reared his son in that faith. Goldwater never identified himself as a Jew - culturally, ethnically, or religiously - in public or in private, and in no way participated in activities related to the Jewish community. Although the debate rages on as to what constitutes a "Jew", I feel very strongly that someone who openly proclaims that he is NOT a Jew, and whose only otherwise connection to the Jewish world is through a single parent who likewise severed his ties to the community before the child's birth, should not be considered Jewish.
Cabinet Members:
First Jew: Theodore Roosevelt (R) - Appointed Oscar Straus, 1906
First Woman: Franklin Roosevelt (D) - Appointed Frances Perkins, 1933
First African-American: Lyndon Johnson (D) - Appointed Robert Weaver, 1966
First Latino: Ronald Reagan (R) - Appointed Lauro Cavazos, 1988
Supreme Court Judges:
First Catholic: Andrew Jackson (D) - Appointed Roger Taney, 1836
First Jew: Woodrow Wilson (D) - Appointed Louis Brandeis, 1916
First African-American: Lyndon Johnson (D) - Appointed Thurgood Marshall, 1967
First Woman: Ronald Reagan (R) - Appointed Sandra Day O'Connor, 1981
First Latino: Barack Obama (D) - Appointed Sonia Sotomayor, 2009
Vice Presidential Candidates:
First Polish American: Hubert Humphrey (D) - Selected Edmund Muskie, 1968
First Woman: Walter Mondale (D) - Selected Geraldine Ferraro, 1984
First Italian American: Walter Mondale (D) - Selected Geraldine Ferraro, 1984
First Jew: Albert Gore (D) - Selected Joseph Lieberman, 2000
Vice Presidents:
First Native American: Herbert Hoover (R) - Selected Charles Curtis, 1928
First Greek American: Richard Nixon (R) - Selected Spiro Agnew, 1968
Presidential Candidates:
First Quaker: Herbert Hoover (R) - 1928
First Catholic: Alfred Smith (D) - 1928
First Greek American: Michael Dukakis (D) - 1988
Presidents:
First Catholic: John Kennedy (D) - 1960
First African-American: Barack Obama (D) - 2008
Addenda:
1) Roger Taney, as Secretary of the Treasury under Andrew Jackson, was the first Catholic to serve in a presidential cabinet OF WHOM I AM AWARE. There may have been other Catholics who preceded him, though, which is why I did not feel comfortable putting his name down.
2) Although the argument has been made that Barry Goldwater, the Republican presidential nominee in 1964, should be considered the first Jewish presidential candidate, there are several factors leaning against such a judgment. Goldwater's only relationship to the Jewish community was the fact that his father was Jewish by birth and religion. That said, this same father converted to Episcopalianism before Goldwater was born and reared his son in that faith. Goldwater never identified himself as a Jew - culturally, ethnically, or religiously - in public or in private, and in no way participated in activities related to the Jewish community. Although the debate rages on as to what constitutes a "Jew", I feel very strongly that someone who openly proclaims that he is NOT a Jew, and whose only otherwise connection to the Jewish world is through a single parent who likewise severed his ties to the community before the child's birth, should not be considered Jewish.
The American Case for Health Care Reform
As the ongoing debate about health care reform reaches its climax, I often find myself wondering what I would do if I were in a position to be a leading voice on this subject. If I were a Senator from the great state of New Jersey, what would I have to say on this subject? What kind of speech would I deliver to both inspire my supporters and build a bridge to my opponents?
Posted below is the answer.
The conventional wisdom has it that health care reform is un-American.
The thing about conventional wisdom, that I have noticed, is that while it is often conventional, it is rarely particularly wise. Such is the case with the common held belief that guaranteeing health care to every one of our citizens somehow goes against the grain of American values. This is a big lie that, as a particularly infamous propagandist once noted, has started to be taken for granted as true through constant repetition. Yet few of the people who believe in this big lie have bothered asking themselves the most basic of all questions: What is America?
America is not a race or a creed or a set of borders. America is not a collection of institutions, be they insurance companies in Hartford or big banks on Wall Street or lobbying headquarters in Washington. America is an idea – a single, simple idea, one that was given its first and greatest articulation by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“To secure these rights” – that is, “the unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – THAT is the reason why “governments are instituted among men”.
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does Jefferson say, “Governments should secure these rights, unless that involves creating a public option”. Nowhere does it say that these rights are guaranteed “except when the president fighting for them is a man named Barack Obama”. Nowhere does it say that these rights are guaranteed to all except those who don’t earn enough money to afford a high cost health insurance premium, or that they are secured except when contradicted by a financially well-heeled interest group and the politicians whose coffers it lubricates.
What Jefferson wrote, once again, was this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
So to the opponents of health care reform, all over the nation, we ask the following questions:
Is it possible to have life without high quality health care, such as will provide you with the medical treatment you need when you’re sick, and which will assist you in remaining healthy when you are well? If the answer is no, then how can you oppose legislation that will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of previous medical conditions, or from dropping people from their plans after they become sick?
Is it possible to be free when, in order to perform the simple act of staying alive and healthy, one must pay more than one can afford, or else take on crippling debt? If the answer is no, then how can you oppose a bill that would put a cap on how much senior citizens can be charged for prescription drugs and limit the amount of money insurance companies can demand patients pay in out-of-pocket expenses?
Is it possible to pursue happiness if, because you do not earn enough money to afford health insurance, any medical procedure – from a needed visit to the emergency room to a simple check-up with a family doctor – could lead to your ruin? If the answer is no, then how can you oppose a government-run health insurance plan that does not forcibly enroll anyone, but which everyone is allowed to join, so that all citizens can at last have access to health care, regardless of their financial status?
In a very real sense, the debate over health care reform in this country is only a symptom, a fragment of a much larger struggle over the definition of the American soul. On the one side, you have individuals on the right and so-called center who denounce as “socialist” and “un-American” not only health care reform – not only health care reform – but economic stimulus packages that can help out-of-work Americans find good-paying jobs, and financial regulations that can protect homeowners from predatory banks, and legislation that can help Americans form labor unions so that our nation’s workforce can have real power with which to fight for its own interests. Within these circles, it is fashionable to view the government as a malevolent entity to be hated and weakened.
On the other side, you have those who recognize that a democratic government – a TRUE democratic government – is neither a god to be worshipped nor a demon to be feared. They understand that, in a democracy, the government is nothing more than the sum of the people who live within it. The first Democratic president, Andrew Jackson, understood this when – in the midst of a battle he fought against a corrupt and overly powerful bank of his own time – he wrote that “it is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes” because “there are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses”. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, also understood this when he famously declared that the government of America is one “of the people, by the people, for the people” – not as an enemy of the people, to be kept separate from and feared by them, but as an instrument owned by the people, one that allows them to control their own lives and which is as good, bad, or indifferent as they themselves choose to make it.
That is the larger battle which we are fighting. Today fifty million Americans suffer because they don’t have health insurance. They need help. Yet there are those who have much to gain – be it money or power or self-affirmation of their ideological dogma – by not helping those people. They will construct all sorts of elaborate arguments and rationalizations to justify seeing to it that these people aren’t helped. Some of what they say is so ghastly that it is meant to frighten you into agreement; some is so idealistic that it’s objective is to seduce you into complacency; some is so complex that it’s supposed to confuse you into ac quiescence, or at least frustrated indifference.
Yet even as they bombard us with these assertions – even as they say, in a thousand-and-one ways, that the government is not to be trusted – what they will have us overlook is the fact that THIS IS OUR GOVERNMENT. It isn’t the politicians’ government, and it isn’t the pundits’ government; it isn’t the corporations’ government or the lobbyists’ government; it isn’t the interest groups’ government or the Tea Party and town hall zealots’ government. It is ALL OF OUR government. Even though those groups claim it as an exclusive property of their own, it is also the property of the uninsured and the unemployed and the disadvantaged everywhere, even though it does not serve them as well as it serves the others. It belongs to us – every single one of us. It was created – instituted among us – deriving its just powers from us – to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the basis upon which our entire political structure exists. That is the backbone upon which our nation was founded. That, in short, IS AMERICA. And it is on America that we, the fighters for health care reform, stake our claim.
Posted below is the answer.
The conventional wisdom has it that health care reform is un-American.
The thing about conventional wisdom, that I have noticed, is that while it is often conventional, it is rarely particularly wise. Such is the case with the common held belief that guaranteeing health care to every one of our citizens somehow goes against the grain of American values. This is a big lie that, as a particularly infamous propagandist once noted, has started to be taken for granted as true through constant repetition. Yet few of the people who believe in this big lie have bothered asking themselves the most basic of all questions: What is America?
America is not a race or a creed or a set of borders. America is not a collection of institutions, be they insurance companies in Hartford or big banks on Wall Street or lobbying headquarters in Washington. America is an idea – a single, simple idea, one that was given its first and greatest articulation by Thomas Jefferson when he wrote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
“To secure these rights” – that is, “the unalienable rights” to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” – THAT is the reason why “governments are instituted among men”.
Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence does Jefferson say, “Governments should secure these rights, unless that involves creating a public option”. Nowhere does it say that these rights are guaranteed “except when the president fighting for them is a man named Barack Obama”. Nowhere does it say that these rights are guaranteed to all except those who don’t earn enough money to afford a high cost health insurance premium, or that they are secured except when contradicted by a financially well-heeled interest group and the politicians whose coffers it lubricates.
What Jefferson wrote, once again, was this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”
So to the opponents of health care reform, all over the nation, we ask the following questions:
Is it possible to have life without high quality health care, such as will provide you with the medical treatment you need when you’re sick, and which will assist you in remaining healthy when you are well? If the answer is no, then how can you oppose legislation that will prohibit insurance companies from denying coverage on the basis of previous medical conditions, or from dropping people from their plans after they become sick?
Is it possible to be free when, in order to perform the simple act of staying alive and healthy, one must pay more than one can afford, or else take on crippling debt? If the answer is no, then how can you oppose a bill that would put a cap on how much senior citizens can be charged for prescription drugs and limit the amount of money insurance companies can demand patients pay in out-of-pocket expenses?
Is it possible to pursue happiness if, because you do not earn enough money to afford health insurance, any medical procedure – from a needed visit to the emergency room to a simple check-up with a family doctor – could lead to your ruin? If the answer is no, then how can you oppose a government-run health insurance plan that does not forcibly enroll anyone, but which everyone is allowed to join, so that all citizens can at last have access to health care, regardless of their financial status?
In a very real sense, the debate over health care reform in this country is only a symptom, a fragment of a much larger struggle over the definition of the American soul. On the one side, you have individuals on the right and so-called center who denounce as “socialist” and “un-American” not only health care reform – not only health care reform – but economic stimulus packages that can help out-of-work Americans find good-paying jobs, and financial regulations that can protect homeowners from predatory banks, and legislation that can help Americans form labor unions so that our nation’s workforce can have real power with which to fight for its own interests. Within these circles, it is fashionable to view the government as a malevolent entity to be hated and weakened.
On the other side, you have those who recognize that a democratic government – a TRUE democratic government – is neither a god to be worshipped nor a demon to be feared. They understand that, in a democracy, the government is nothing more than the sum of the people who live within it. The first Democratic president, Andrew Jackson, understood this when – in the midst of a battle he fought against a corrupt and overly powerful bank of his own time – he wrote that “it is to be regretted that the rich and powerful too often bend the acts of government to their selfish purposes” because “there are no necessary evils in government. Its evils exist only in its abuses”. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president, also understood this when he famously declared that the government of America is one “of the people, by the people, for the people” – not as an enemy of the people, to be kept separate from and feared by them, but as an instrument owned by the people, one that allows them to control their own lives and which is as good, bad, or indifferent as they themselves choose to make it.
That is the larger battle which we are fighting. Today fifty million Americans suffer because they don’t have health insurance. They need help. Yet there are those who have much to gain – be it money or power or self-affirmation of their ideological dogma – by not helping those people. They will construct all sorts of elaborate arguments and rationalizations to justify seeing to it that these people aren’t helped. Some of what they say is so ghastly that it is meant to frighten you into agreement; some is so idealistic that it’s objective is to seduce you into complacency; some is so complex that it’s supposed to confuse you into ac quiescence, or at least frustrated indifference.
Yet even as they bombard us with these assertions – even as they say, in a thousand-and-one ways, that the government is not to be trusted – what they will have us overlook is the fact that THIS IS OUR GOVERNMENT. It isn’t the politicians’ government, and it isn’t the pundits’ government; it isn’t the corporations’ government or the lobbyists’ government; it isn’t the interest groups’ government or the Tea Party and town hall zealots’ government. It is ALL OF OUR government. Even though those groups claim it as an exclusive property of their own, it is also the property of the uninsured and the unemployed and the disadvantaged everywhere, even though it does not serve them as well as it serves the others. It belongs to us – every single one of us. It was created – instituted among us – deriving its just powers from us – to secure our unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is the basis upon which our entire political structure exists. That is the backbone upon which our nation was founded. That, in short, IS AMERICA. And it is on America that we, the fighters for health care reform, stake our claim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)