Year-One Assessment

by Jackson Dave

In 1989 the Berlin Wall was dismantled by joyful East Berliners. Soon the Soviet Union collapsed. To a naïve world, it appeared that a new era of peace was at hand; the Pax Americana would descend and the world would become a better place for all….sure!

Disruption of the world order, held in place by the cold war, blew the lid off hostilities and hatred that have festered for generations. Poverty and injustice persist worldwide. In short order, genocide in East Timor expanded; Somalia erupted in warfare, dragging a reluctant U. S. response…then Bosnia, Montenegro, genocide, mass-mutilation in Sierra Leone…on and on. In only 15 to 20 years we find a world more dangerous than the one featuring our controlled proxy wars against our “evil”, imaginary rival.

Move forward 20 years and re-visit the euphoria felt by many over the election of a black man to our presidency. Not only did we eclipse our legacy of slavery and racism, but the political order of the “neocon” was swept away with the disgraced Bush administration. Now embarrassed Republicans would recognize the sour fruit of their political extremism and begin to co-operate in national revitalization…sure!

Three weeks ago, again the lid was blown off. Consensus is exposed as a house of cards, and the Supreme Court of our land---the third pillar of our precious government---is exposed as a bunch of political hacks. What’s going on?

To this point, your editorial staff at Robbinsense has engaged in a tacit policy of “political” avoidance. But what we see emerging in recent weeks is so steeped in political swamp-dredgery that we are compelled to speak to it.

Mr. Obama has been exposed as a cerebral, somewhat bland technocrat who can command a dais and inspire with rhetoric, but has no apparent gift for leadership. Of the many promises made during the campaign few have been fulfilled, and many have been sidetracked by his own dithering. (Approximately 125 of 500 promises have been kept.) One promise, however, that has been kept was his striving for bipartisanship. This has been naively pursued even in the face of obstinate obstructionism by Republicans.

At the one-year mark, we should have seen one, maybe both wars brought to an end; we should have seen healthcare reform; Gitmo should have been closed; torture as well as torture-by-proxy (extraordinary rendition) should have been categorically renounced (instead of just stopped, sort of); financial institutions should have been brought to heel with solid regulation ending the practices that brought us to the brink of ruin; we should bear a new face of international cooperation, putting an end to our “war on terror”.

Instead, the wars go on, with expanded troop levels in Afghanistan, now wide-spread bombing in Pakistan, lingering military presence and killing in Iraq. We are still widely regarded as world policeman and bully. Terrorism, on the heels of international outrage stalks us on our streets and in our skies. Our financial structure with massive infusions of cash from the government has rebounded, bringing health to Wall Street while Main Street remains on life support with 11% unemployment and manufacturing stagnation. Interest rates are bottoming out, retarding investment, while banks have a choke-hold on personal credit, thumbing their noses at the tax payers who bailed them out. Collateral debt obligations, as well as credit default swaps and mind boggling hedge-funding go on their merry way with bankers pulling huge salary bonuses right under our noses.

Republicans succeeded in delaying healthcare reform “until somebody died”, as Tom Coburn prayed on the Senate floor. (In this case it was the Kennedy Democratic Senate seat.) After advocating a (wildly sensible) tax on soda pop, and with moderate support from congress, the president allowed the effort to die before resistance from the food industry. In the face of bi-partisan support, he opposed the "family care-givers stipend", which would compensate family members for tending to vets with traumatic brain injury, affecting 22% of those injured in our current wars. Even on the environmental front, Mr. Obama recently put on hold impending regulation to reclaim salmon habitat, leaving the Pacific Coho on life support. The Obama plan adopts the Bush plan’s legal and scientific clap-trap in its entirety! “Bush Lite!” On and on it goes…

The Massachusetts Senatorial election was not a repudiation of Mr. Obama, so much as it was a shot across the bow letting this government know that “change we can believe in” has been a farce, and this government has but another six to eight months to engage.

Beyond Mr. Obama, congress is a disgrace, absorbed by fund raising to stoke political and personal greed. As healthcare reform sunk into oblivion, Max Baucus (D-Mont), heading the Democratic effort opened up his campaign to a $4 million contribution from the industry he was supposed to be reforming. Senators Lieberman (I-Conn.), Bayh (D-Ind.), Nelson (D-Neb.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) accepted millions from the insurance industry then promptly opposed the “public option”.

This putrid Congress lies at the very heart of our government. And if that’s not bad enough, the third leg of our government, the Supreme Court, is equally determined to continue “politics” as usual, opening floodgates for the river of money that’s destroying us. How is our technocrat president going to make a dent in this political deluge while continuing the political game that brought us to this point? Our only hope is for citizens to stand up and DEMAND that the president perform and reform. We hope this Massachusetts shocker is precisely that.

As for the Republicans, where do we begin?

We assume that the first order of government is on behalf of the public good. Yet one need only look at our election process to realize that the majority of the people in government must have a personal agenda and ambition to wade into this swamp. Can one of our two major parties blatantly appear to have no concern for the welfare of this nation whatsoever? Would that be the party that runs Patriotism up its flagpole as a pillar of its public stance?

Republicans, for the last year, have engaged in a campaign of “NO”. Their policy of blocking all significant legislation is a policy of political “scorched earth.” Even in good times this might be seen as naked obstructionism, but coming now when we’re confronting economic and financial melt-down, budgetary crisis at all levels of government, failing infrastructure, multiple wars on behalf of Republican doctrine, one might think that the public wouldn’t tolerate it.

Republicans, in a frantic chase to posture themselves for the next election cycle, demonize the president, calling him Hitler, his programs “communistic”. Having demonized the president or his programs with hyperbolic calumny, they place themselves in a position from which it is political suicide to compromise. In the meantime, as long as they can block any real change, Republicans can prevent a turn-around in our country’s fortunes that might be credited to Democrats.

While we acknowledge that both parties tend to operate the same way, recall that George W. Bush received cooperation from Democratic legislators, not only in his economic agenda, but also his war plans. Likewise, in 1981, with Ronald Reagan’s solid mandate, Democrats made no concerted effort to block his agenda. Fully 1/3 of House Democrats voted for the ill-fated Reagan economic agenda, billed as “voodoo economics” by his own VP and panned by his budget director, David Stockman, who in an article in the Atlantic Monthly, called it a “Trojan Horse”. (To save face, Reagan kept Stockman on, but he was effectively muzzled.)

So can Republicans be appeased by any policy? In the mid nineties America experienced unparalleled prosperity. Bill Clinton, a solid centrist, dropped Republican-opposed healthcare reform. He abandoned gays in the military, giving us “Don’t ask, Don’t tell”; he balanced the budget, pushed and passed NAFTA, and enacted welfare reform that significantly reduced welfare rolls. He also pushed an anti-crime agenda, expanding the scope of the war on drugs and imposing mandatory sentencing guidelines. This is a record that would make any Republican wildly proud. A logical person would presume that they would love him. But no, the Republicans loathed Bill Clinton and derailed his second term with investigations and eventual impeachment. Republicans are not motivated by issues---even their own issues! Republicans are motivated by power. They use issues to manipulate ignorant people.

In the struggle to enact healthcare reform, Democrats invested valuable months in trying to gain bipartisan support. Over and over, Republican demands for revisions and amendments were fielded, with hundreds of amendments approved. So many amendments were enacted that the AMA and insurance companies endorsed the bill! It broadly tracked the Republican alternative to the 1993 Clinton healthcare bill, with new cost-controlling devises favored by both parties! And how many Republicans voted for this package? None! The entire process was a charade, a delay tactic. Republicans are only interested in discrediting the Democratic president.

Their “policy” plan is simple and harkens back generations. Until the 1930s, our government, patterned after British tradition, had no provision for helping citizens during hard times. When the economy spiraled in after October, 1929, millions were thrown out of work and into extreme poverty. Co-incidentally, abnormal weather patterns and disastrous farming techniques left soils vulnerable to depletion and erosion in the Midwest. This brought about “The Dust Bowl," which drove additional millions from their destroyed homes and farms. Republicans blocked any efforts for congress to intervene, and under (Republican) Herbert Hoover, the government did nothing to help these people.

When FDR came to power in 1933, Republicans opposed programs that might help the needy. Roosevelt was demonized for driving up the national debt, labeled “Communist” and Fascist , another Hitler, (in power at the time in Germany). Does that sound familiar?

Calling FDR or President Obama “Hitler” or “Communist” is preposterous beyond consideration. But this is still the Republican plan: Just throw out accusations, names, calumny---however outrageous---(“death panels”)---and keep hammering it to see what eventually sticks. We are so dumb that eventually after hearing it, enough people start to make the desired association. Again, the strategy is not to achieve any kind of meaningful legislation---it’s only to derail the Democrats and get Republicans back in power.

This pathetic spectacle of Congress is like a small-town football team trying to organize. The community is wildly enthusiastic because Billy Farrell has a Favre-like, rapier arm. But Johnny Martin, with no arm, has the only football in town. He refuses to let the team use his ball unless he gets to play quarterback. Rather than field a team with no passing game, they just squabble, leaving the town frustrated and confused. The Democratic majority could have pressed a decent bill to the floor for debate and allowed the public to watch in disgust as Republicans filibuster. But no, the Dems are in collusion and wrangle for the 60-vote super-majority, which forced enough concessions from recalcitrant blue-dogs that the Republicans could achieve, and the country could see a bill that was by then pork-laden, unwieldy and unpopular.

As this essay goes to press, a backlog of 70 executive administration appointments is being held up by Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala) on behalf of two minor pork-barrel projects for his state. In the face of wide-spread distrust of their own congressional delegation by the public (45%), Republicans (who supposedly oppose earmarks) stand lock-step behind Shelby in blocking any and all public business of the Obama Administration.

Beyond this mess, the sad truth appears to be that the common American has been dumbed down to the point that no expression of evidence or logic can sway him from what he wants to believe. When our stupidity is validated by smarmy politicians, we like them! It’s easier to accept ourselves as we are than to think and change! Middle-class Americans believe Republican lies because they're being told they are victims. This is a disgusting, yet wildly effective technique for manipulating gullible or ignorant people. It also undermines any sincere efforts that Mr. Obama or the Democrats may put forward.

As for the Supreme Court:

Since Richard Nixon’s presidency, a central feature of Republican and conservative rhetoric has been to attack “judicial activism”, a vague term used to describe the (Republican, Earl) Warren court and anything with a liberal outcome. Turns out this only applies when it serves ideological convenience.

Brown vs. Board of Education, widely regarded as the greatest moment in Supreme Court history, was opposed by Republicans because it up-ended an 89-year precedent of Jim Crow. “Brown” overturned Plessey vs. Ferguson, and was handed down by unanimous vote. There was no partisanship on the panel. But the Roberts court’s campaign finance decision makes “conservative” rhetoric laughable. It eliminates a key component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. “McCain” was a continuation of statutes piling up since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration. There is not a shred of evidence that the framers of the 1^st Amendment wished to protect the prerogatives of corporations to sway elections. For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government. Where, oh where is the conservative outcry over this monstrosity? Yet the court has dramatically restricted free speech in other areas, such as government employees and students. These people are colossal hypocrites!

Misconduct on the court is obvious.

Any freshman law student knows “jurisprudence” demands that a judge excuse himself from a case where personal conflict exists. Federal law says "any justice or judge shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be questioned..."

For nearly three years, former Vice President Dick Cheney had been fighting demands that he reveal whether he met with energy industry officials, including Kenneth Lay when Lay was chairman of Enron, while Cheney was formulating the president's energy policy. A lower court ruled that Cheney must turn over documents detailing who met with his task force; but on Dec. 15, 2002 the high court announced it would hear his appeal. In a flagrant, public misstep, Judge Antonin Scalia, a personal friend of Cheney, went duck-hunting with his friend while Cheney was under indictment before his own court! Did Judge Scalia recuse himself from the panel? No, he voted on behalf of his friend!

This same stinking cabal put George W. Bush in the Whitehouse after losing the election of 2000, and has now assured that Republicans will dominate this government indefinitely, or until the people of this country stop it. (Recall that with countless irregularities, the Florida Supreme court had mandated a recount of the Florida vote. Our framers mandated that the STATES would control election of the president.)

Still, in the interim period during confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor, we heard conservatives wailing over possible “activist” tendencies of a Latina judge.

Supreme Court judges are “supposed to be” politically impartial, but if they’re not, too bad. There is no recourse within the constitution to deal with improper behavior. The president can refuse to enforce their rulings, risking impeachment himself; but the judges cannot be impeached. Congress may pass legislation to circumvent bad policy, but that again may be over-ruled. In any case, our current ability to predict Supreme Court decisions by weighing in the two parties’ political preferences is a case study in the character of the nominees placed before the Senate. It also marks a low in our nation’s descent into corrosive partisanship.

There is recourse for this decision. Congress could mandate that actual funding sources for ALL campaign-related material must be prominently displayed. If the court can enforce “freedom of speech” for corporations, Congress can mandate that the public be informed of who’s speaking! For films or advertising, large, prominent indication of the sponsors should be indicated both at the beginning and end of the material. This must preclude “straw man” references to bogus, front groups (“Citizens for Better Government”, or such dribble) that hide the real sponsors. When intelligent people see that Exxon/Mobile or Bear Stearns funded an attack ad, it could easily back-fire. We can be certain, however, that Republicans will oppose such a measure.

Progress over the last year? Obviously we're on a better track than under President Bush. We feel confident that we're in vastly better shape than we would have been under would-be President McCain, even if he had followed through on all of his promises!

But the struggle for healthcare reform casts too much light on Mr. Obama's performance to ignore. In a politically motivated drive to pass (any) healthcare reform, the president sold out to the political interests that would inevitably oppose the bill. By taking the "public option" off the table and requiring people to buy over-priced policies (whether government sponsored or not), he was throwing meat to the industry. A bill that would drive insurance stocks up cannot be a good bill, and ultimately would solve nothing! The hope and promise that propelled Mr. Obama to office---the expectation that this man would reform "politics as usual"---has been betrayed. Needing a microscope to find change, we grade the president: D, not passing. Congress gets an F; the Supreme Court F-; The Republican leadership in congress: F---.

The only practical solution to this and many of our political problems is campaign reform. Real reform is impossible unless we DEMAND it by promising to remove every recalcitrant bum from office who stands in its path. Asking voters to actually do this, however, is spitting into the wind. But with strong leadership, this is something that the president may be able to accomplish. If Mr. Obama is to regain momentum and the public esteem that he brought to office, he must begin by attacking the government itself, and delivering the kind of reform that he promised. The Massachusetts election is an opening salvo from the public, though it appears after his swearing in that Scott Brown is a dubious choice to begin the campaign. Stay tuned.

Jackson Dave is a staff writer on Robbinsense