Morning Fog

Obama: What Is He Thinking?

A lot of commentary, over the past two years, has focused on how President Obama often comes across as diffident -- some even say indecisive -- as for example when he avoided prescribing specific ideas for health care reform, or took a good long while to formulate a policy for military operations in Afghanistan.  It has seemed to me that Obama's style of deliberation and decision-making owes much to his academic background and, although it can't fairly be described as indecisive, it's certainly unusual in a successful politician.

Harvard American history Professor James T. Kloppenberg agrees that Obama has often seemed a "mystery," but he thinks he's found the key by studying the political influences that helped shaped Obama's views as he matured.  So, he's written a book:  Reading Obama: Dreams, Hopes, and the American Political Tradition.   A book on historical, legal, and political theory isn't probably destined to become a bestseller, or even be widely read, outside the Groves of Academe, but if you're interested in this topic, you might find it fascinating. 

One interesting line of explanation is that Obama's approach reflects the historical truth that our Constitution itself is the product of a dialogue between very different concepts of governance.  Many of these differences were resolved, in the final document, by compromise which did not fully satisfy either party.  Kloppenberg suggests that one of the wisest things the framers did was to allow for amendments to our basic law, recognizing that the debate (at that time, characterized as between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists) would continue -- as indeed it has, to this day.  For Obama (says Kloppenberg) this means a recognition that nothing is ever settled, that ideas and laws need constant reevaluation, and that a lively debate is essential to reaching good decisions.

Reading The Election Results

It was inevitable, and predicted by many (including Morning Fog) that the current crop of Republican leaders would profess to misread the election results of November 2, pretending to see in them a landslide of voters endorsing the Republican platform hook, line, and sinker.

We might not have expected it so soon, though.  Prior to their meeting with the President today, that irrepressible pair of perpetually confused-looking politicos, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, released a statement, carried in most major media, claiming that the Republicans got "the message" the voters delivered at the polls:

"That's why we made a pledge to America to cut spending, rein in government, and permanently extend the current tax rates so small-business owners won't get hit with a massive tax hike at the end of December. That's what Americans want." 

This statement makes me smile because it reminds me so much of the strippers in the musical Gypsy doing the tune "Give 'em what they like, the way they like it..."   In short, it's pandering (a habit Boehner and McConnell have fallen into for several years now). 

If the Republican mantra is really to "give 'em what they want," then we must assume that four years ago, the voters wanted -- among other desiderata -- a debilitating recession, underwater mortgages, the loss of their jobs, unsafe food supplies, and a slipshod healthcare system that leaves millions of people uncovered.  The voters changed their minds again, I guess, in 2008 but the GOP mysteriously refused in that case to give them what they wanted.    

Should politicians pander?  Certainly it benefits them to do so.  But we used to have political leaders who would lead.  And that would entail, in this case, starting to point out the hard truths that two bipartisan commissions have now laid out regarding our economic future, namely, that we can't solve our long term problems without both cutting back on expenditures and increasing taxes. 

It's natural for the Republicans to be posturing at this point, interpreting the elections wishfully (you see, they give themselves what they want, too!), and generally trying to set the tone of political dialogue for the next two years.  No one expected much of anything to emerge from the meeting today anyway, and according to early reports, nothing did.

Come January, however, what I believe people really want is the kind of pragmatic compromise that will start to solve our problems rather than kick them down the road.  Let us hope that Boehner and McConnell can make the transition from political hack to leader.  

Acey-Deucey Over DC

For a short period last year, there was some hope that the Constitutionally-imposed disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia might finally be brought to an end.  No such luck, it seems, and now, after the recent elections, the idea of providing DC residents a voting voice in Congress again seems not just on the back burner, but off the stove entirely.

The fundamentals of this issue are clear to me:  Truly how is it possible, in the United States of America, where we proclaim ourselves the ultimate small-d democrats, that we have a group of citizens who have only second-class representation in Congress? 

It's unclear what the Founding Daddies might have been thinking when the Constitution was drafted and no provision for DC's representation in Congress was made.  My own view is that they weren't thinking.  For all the talk in that document about states, the term is never really defined, and the framers just forgot about the minor detail of people who might live in the federal District. 

Regardless of what they may have been thinking, the question ought to be resolved, indeeed ought to have been resolved long ago.  The reasons the problem has never been dealt with are, of course, mainly political. 

Some opponents hide behind strict construction of the Constitution ("The Constitution makes us do it.")  But we were able to amend the Constitution's de jure definition of slaves as only 60 percent of a "person" (as well as the subsequent  reality of their de facto complete disenfranchisement after Emancipation), so we ought to be able to fix this.  DC representation is more fundamental, in fact, because we can at least understand the historical developments, social attitudes, and political exigencies that caused slaves (even freed ones) to be given such short shrift, while there were no such extenuating factors relating to the District of Columbia.

The real sticking point is one of political balance, which suggests why Republicans, though not alone in opposing DC voting rights, are proportionately much more set against it:  The District of Columbia is a Democratic stronghold, and Republicans naturally would prefer not to have an additional Democratic seat in the House of Representatives.  It's that simple.  Still, I submit that equal voting rights should trump these political considerations.

Extending that "political balance" argument are some like Congressman Darrell Issa, who will now presumably be the Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who argues that representation in the House would lead inevitably to later pressures to grant the District of Columbia two seats in the Senate.  My first reaction to that is, "well, big whoop!" - shouldn't that be our goal, really?  After all, the District, despite its postage-stamp size, has about the same population as the state of Wyoming, which does have two Senators.   And perhaps that would lead us to consider the serious and growing disparities of per capita representation in the Senate between populous states and vacant ones (see my post "U.S. Elections, One Month After" on this blog).

I think Issa is being hypocritical but OK, if that's a bridge too far, there are options:  One good one is to have the people of DC vote for Senatorial candidates in Maryland, the state which contributed the territory that now forms the District of Columbia.  

In any event, our failure as a democratic society to deal with DC disenfranchisement is shameful.  Far from throwing in the towel, I believe advocates should capitalize on the current moment, while the shellack brush is still wet in Republican hands, to push the issue.  Doesn't the Republican Party believe in one man, one vote?  (Or even if they don't, will they come out publicly to say they don't?).   Or are they really members of a third party, the Hypocrats?  If Republicans - who now also control more state Governorships - support DC representation, and get behind a Constitutinonal amendment, it can be done.  Democrats who oppose will likely fall in line, but their votes aren't needed.  And there might be a silver lining for Republican support on this issue:  Wouldn't it be interesting if the first elected Representative from the District of Columbia were ... gasp!! -- a Republican? 

"Acey-deucey" (in my title above) is an old term for the throwing of a 1-2 combination in backgammon.  There's a basic political freedom here, which shouldn't be subject to a roll of the dice.  Go for it, DC.  

 

The U.S. Elections, One Month After

With the midterm U.S. elections a few weeks behind us now, we are all aware, I hope, that the Democratic Party received a "shellacking" at the polls, and that the Republican Party now proudly claims control of the House.   A lot of analysis and reporting since has focused on that fact alone, and on the immediate legislative agenda but as I try to back away from the close-up view of the trees and focus more on the whole landscape, here are my random observations:

Both parties' partisans are drawing the wrong lessons from these elections.  The results were neither overwhelming approval of the regressive Republican agenda nor a rebuke to Democrats for not being progressive enough.  The Republicans owe their electoral good fortune strictly to the state of the economy, and if by chance it seems perverse that voters would react to an economic meltdown by putting the guys who wrought it back in charge, just as the country is beginning to pull out of its slump, well ... that's politics!

Hopes that a return to split government will engender a move to greater cooperation and less dogmatic partisanship in Congress seem very likely to be dashed, as GOP leaders so far seem more interested in making Obama a one-term President than in working toward compromise on national issues or offering their own ideas.

Truly thoughtful Republicans are, or should be, worried because the broad sociopolitical trends in the nation don't favor their continued success at the polls (unless they come up with a whole new platform which is nowhere in evidence now).  As the country continues to urbanize and to diversify, the popular vote will tilt increasingly toward the solutions Democrats offer. 

Corollary: A wild swing from one party to the other, such as we've just seen, will inevitably carry its own correction; I view this month's election results as the same kind of turbulence that prevails in the climate -- higher global temperatures overall are manifested in greater extremes of weather, both winter and summer.  Generally, Republican leaders currently (they're not the thoughtful ones) seek to deny climate change, both meteorologically and politically - how can they resolve a dilemma they won't even recognize?     

The rate of the correction is slowed by the fact that Democratic losses this year leave the field open for Republicans to redraw electoral district boundaries in a way that will create more "safe" seats for their party.  On the other hand, the rate of correction may be accelerated somewhat by the success of the tea party iconoclasts, which ultimately drives the GOP in a more conservative direction, divides the political right, and benefits the left. One intriguing possibility is that the tea party group, rather than focusing their efforts on a Quixotic battle to banish earmarks, might focus instead on an equally Quixotic effort to stop gerrymandering.  (But I predict that won't happen.)

One of the most serious issues brought out by these elections is the growing disparity between the increasingly numerous "have-nots" and the far less numerous "haves."  This statement might be true with reference to income distribution, but actually I'm thinking more of electoral votes and Congressional representation.   In the Senate in particular, when a small state like Wyoming has the same voting power as California with 70 times greater population, strains are obvious as one-third of our population holds two-thirds or more of the voting power.  Is the Constitution flexible enough to resolve this tension?  Perhaps, if we move back to greater reliance on state-by-state solutions, though that brings different problems. 

Putting Politics In Perspective

It happened that I was in Ireland the week the U.S. elections were held.  It was a refreshing and instructive experience.  Why?  Because the U.S. election results earned barely a mention in news media in Ireland.

So much of what passes for political debate here at home, so much of our focus and energy, is on matters that in the long run amount to little more than petty squabbles -- full of sound and fury, little noted and not long remembered.

For our part, we Americans by and large return the favor by ignoring what is going on beyond our borders.  How many of us, for example, would know about the current problems of the Irish economy?  (These were not evident to the casual traveler, by the way.)

A lot of U.S. politicians, including veterans like Boehner, McConnell, possibly Pelosi, and certainly a large percentage of the new crop of freshman Congresspeople, could benefit from having been in Dublin, Cork, or Killarney on election day.  It would be a useful lesson in humility for those who think the world revolves around the U.S. or whose world view is so parochial they think what goes on beyond our own borders is of no import.