Morning Fog

Integrity In Politics

Like so many other things happening in Washington DC of late, the confirmation process for Obama's SecDef nominee Chuck Hagel reflects a deep-seated Republican party hatred of anything Obamian.  The continuing GOP refusal to cooperate in anything the President does, which so far as I can assess is the handiwork mainly of the Senate's senile minority leader, goes far beyond anything that could be justified on purely political grounds.  It includes thwarting simple procedural steps that any patriotic citizen might suppose were essential for the good of the nation, such as confirming a head for the Department of Defense, or a functioning court system.  

Much of this shameful saga is well-exposed by political observer Dana Milbank in yesterday's Washington Post.  Interestingly, this piece ran in the print press with the subheading that the GOP had "lost its integrity" during the anti-Hagel orgy.  Interesting, because who could possibly have thought that the GOP still had any integrity? 

No need to look far for signs of dis-integritization.  They're obvious in the Hagel confirmation fight, of course, but also in the earlier groundless uproar over the killing of American diplomats in Benghazi, Libya; and of course on the "sequestration" issue, where Republicans, for at least the third time, seem content to hold the country's economic well-being and international financial credit hostage to their visceral hatred of Obama.

Don't Democrats need to be prepared to compromise on some issues too?  Indeed.  Yet it's evident to me and I think to a lot of others that the rock-hard Republican recalcitrance toward any compromise is the greater obstacle to progress, one that caused them initially to stumble into the foolish sequester plan in fhe first place, and one that paradoxically makes it easier for Democrats to sit tight. 

Still Missing The Point

I was impressed, in a negative way, by an op-ed piece written by Stuart Stevens, who is described as the "lead strategist" for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign.

Stevens starts out as if he had learned something from the election results. The GOP's loss, he says, was not a technological one, but "more reflective of substance."  He makes a good point in reminding Republicans that better use of media and social networks to spread their message will not help them win the next election if the underlying message is not one that appeals to voters.

It's all downhill from there, however, as he goes on to try to explain why Republicans won the dwindling white seniors demographic, while Democrats captured the young, the black, and the Hispanic voters in large numbers:

• The Democrats favored policies like gay marriage and free contraception, which are of more interest to younger voters. (Caveat: Gee, I don't remember "free contraception" being a big issue. Unless this is Stevens's code for abortion?)   African-Americans voted Democratic because "Obamacare" is most popular with that group, and only slightly less popular with "Hispanics."  Well duh!  So Obama won by representing the social policies that America's changing population wants.  What a concept!  But this is Romney's old pretense that serving voters' needs and expectations is pandering... "give them lollipops, and they will come," he seemed to say, probably channeling Stevens's advice.
• Meanwhile, Stevens adds, Romney won among seniors because they are more concerned with the economy.  This seems a doubtful proposition.  Everyone is concerned with the economy.  And if a "senior" is a person in, or near, retirement, I'd say the younger generations are far more concerned with the economy than oldsters; in fact, they probably had a better understanding of how today's economy has changed, and could better see what role Republican orthodoxy had played in enabling the recession.   Either way, Stevens's argument subliminally implies that younger peoples' interests aren't to be taken seriously.  Republicans will continue to emphasize the "adult" stuff (tough love and cod liver oil?) and voters will come to their senses.
• To wrap up, this political strategist notes that the GOP can easily reverse Democratic gains and stage a "revival" because the leading Democrats for 2016 are both in their 70s, while Republicans have a host of up-and-coming younger prospects.  Thus he unwittingly reinforces the message that Republican policy prescriptions don't need to change, it's all about the superficiality of having the younger candidate.

In short, Stevens says the Republican message must change, yet if we read his lips, he's really suggesting the change need only be in the presentation.  More branding, in other words, even if the herd is infested with mad cow disease.   We assume the young Republican candidate of 2016 - if he/she knows what's good for her/him - won't be engaging Mr. Stevens's services.

Laboratories

Back when Napoleon was a pup, and schools taught government and civics (it's clear they no longer do because nobody under 50 seems to have the least concept of those topics), they used to tell us that our federal system, by leaving most functions to the states, meant that there was lots of room for experimenting with different laws, different solutions, different ways of doing things. 

So Nebraska, for example, decided it couldn't afford to have half its small population sitting around debating laws, and proved that a unicameral legislature could work.  Later Massachusetts, under the leadership of then-Governor Mitt Romney, was able to create a model near-universal health care system that was later heavily criticized by former Governor Mitt Romney (and became the Bain of his existence).

The states, they said, were little "laboratories of government."  But some labs produce penicillin, or teflon; others produce Frankenstein or nerve gas.

My state, Virginia, has been an especially busy experimental laboratory lately but has produced entries mainly in the latter category.  It was the first to go to court to challenge the Affordable Care Act; has actively considered a law requiring women who plan an abortion to get an ultrasound first; was the hatching-place of a cynical and opportunistic effort to gerrymander electoral districts to provide up to five more "safe" Republican districts; and has sought to enshrine in its Constitution the right of its citizens to own a gun from birth. 

Could all this silliness result from the fact that we are the poster-child purple state, with voters split evenly between Republicans and Democrats?   Our House of Delegates is Republican-controlled, our Senate is split exactly 50-50.  Yet thanks to the relative pragmatism of our current Republican Governor, the Commonwealth of Virginia appears to be on the verge of making some progress on its most pressing problem -- the woeful lack of funding for roads and other transportation.  

Governor McDonnell has cobbled together a package of funding measures that is balanced enough to make Democrats squawk  (such as using more general revenue for roads, at the expense of education) and Republicans rage (e.g., increasing the sales tax).  That's a good indication it's likely to pass, the first concrete (no pun intended) improvement in many a year - although right now, Democrats are holding it hostage to an understanding on how to handle Medicaid in future.

Could this workable compromise of a transportation bill put an end to the state's long string of Frankensteinish political inventiveness?  I'm not certain.  Understandably, there are controversial provisions in it, which are there for political reasons.  But one aspect of the legislations seems unfathomable and unnecessary to me:  By lowering the state's already low gasoline tax, while increasing the sales tax to compensate, it encourages the consumption of gasoline, while forcing all citizens to pay the freight for the gas-guzzlers.  It even imposes a special tax on "alternative fuel" vehicles!

This pouring fuel on the fiery demand for gasoline makes no sense to me - and it gives the new transportation solution the jerky, shuffling gait of a Frankenstein.   

Drones

I am stupefied.  Knee-jerk reactionary columnist Charles Krauthammer agreeing with President Obama?  (Or any other Democract, for that matter?)  Unimaginable!   It's never occurred before; unlike several other columnists in the conservative camp, CK is not known for his ability to think even occasionally outside party lines.

But there it is, in black and white: "In Defense of Obama's Drone War."  Krauthammer here backs not only the use of drones in warfare, as the title suggests, but also the killing of American citizens who have treasonously become the enemies of their own country.

As well he should.  Drones do have their problems, of course.  We might be concerned about the moral and dehumanizing implications of push-button, long-distance warfare, but that seems nevertheless to be the way things are moving ... the trend since at least WWI has been to move the fighting back from the actual battlefield, to the extent possible.  Another problem may be our own reaction to being drone targets when other countries obtain them and use them against us, but that's looking rather far ahead.

Whatever problems may be associated with drones, collateral damage isn't one of them.  Is there really a difference between the "blockbuster" of WWII, which took out a whole city block; the B-52 strikes used in Vietnam, or today's drones?  Yes!  The difference is that the drones are more discriminating and produce fewer unintended casualties. 

I have particular difficulty understanding those who suggest killing an "American citizen" by drone.  This question has never arisen in previous conflicts, why does it arise now?  In any event, it's irrelevant.  Someone can be, de jure, an American citizen simply by virtue of having been born in the U.S.; but if he joins an army or organization that's in direct and purposeful conflict against U.S. targets, he's de facto no longer a citizen, he's an enemy combatant, citizen or not.

So let's abandon trying to make drones controversial, and applaud Krauthammer's first foray into non-partisan thinking.  (By the way, he's also correct that the Justice Department has done a weak job of defending a policy that needs no defense.) 

Penny-Pinching

President Obama on Google yesterday, speaking on the question of doing away with pennies:

“We remember our piggy banks and counting up all our pennies, and then taking them in and getting a dollar bill or a couple of dollars,” he said. “One of the things you see chronically in government is it’s very hard to get rid of things that don’t work so you can then invest on the things that do. The penny ends up being sort of a metaphor for the larger problems that we’ve got."

People have been pointing out for years that it costs the U.S. government more to mint a penny than the penny itself is worth.  Would anyone miss the penny, really?  It's been a decade at least since many merchants started keeping a penny tray beside their cash registers, where people could either leave their unwanted coppery coins, or pick up one.   Personally, I used to save them for parking meters but in my area parking meters no longer accept them (even a nickel will get you only two minutes).  And it's worth noting that Canada recently gave up their penny. 

IF anybody decided we really needed pennies, we could think about making them more cheaply (plastic? recyclable potato starch?); or we could just redefine our coinage, defining a penny as worth one-twentieth of a dollar rather than one one-hundredth, and so on up the line, so the quarter could transmogrify into the much-needed dollar coin that wouldn't burst through your pocket.  But really, no one is going to be able to build a serious case that we really need pennies.  All coins may be endangered, sooner than we think -- cash transactions are becoming as scarce as hen's teeth, with people are using their credit cards for even the tiniest purchases these days. 

I like Obama's thought of the penny as a metaphor for other problems we face.  There is no logical reason to persist in producing metal pennies that cost more than they're worth.  Yet the opposition to dropping the penny is entirely built on deep-rooted emotion and nostalgia, which makes this simple coinage issue more difficult to resolve than seemingly more controversial matters like drones or guns.  

(Incidentally, will the NRA, in its "response" today to the State of the Union message, propose that every citizen has a right to a drone?)  

 

Helicoptering Literature

A Virginia woman is taking up the cudgels against Toni Morrison's novel Beloved and more broadly, against literary works that might be deemed to damage her teen-ager's psyche.  She says she's not a book-burner, but on the other hand, I guess she's a book-banner [so I'll just call her BB], since she'd like to set up "policies" governing the assignment of books that might have "objectionable material" so that parents will have more input as to what books their kids read.  This all arose because BB's son, a senior in high school, reportedly found the book disturbing. 

BB is the one who spoke out, and in America, we credit her for doing so; but she isn't an isolated case; she is speaking for many, many parents.  The difficulty, of course, is that each parent may have different objections to different works, leaving entire generations of kids reading pablum.  And in this particular case, the novel is meant to be "disturbing."  Nevertheless, many communities' school systems do have provisions in place that allow parents to challenge books being read in classes, so this particular quest isn't all that unusual.

The added factor here, however, is that the reading in this case was assigned for an "Advanced Placement" class.   While parents might be allowed to make a judgment as to what their offspring be exposed to in high school, AP classes are by definition supposed to be college-level material.  This in my view should put them beyond the pale for parental interference.  If a parent believes her son or daughter - as a high school senior - isn't ready for exposure to the ills of the big wide world, they should keep them out of AP classes.

Naturally, parents don't want to do this.  College-credit classes were in their infancy when I took calculus as a high school senior way back in 1962; the class was taught by a professor from the local university, and its only benefit was to get a subject out of the way so that you wouldn't need to take it in college.   Now, many high school students graduate with a half-dozen or more "AP" classes on their transcript, and - for reasons endemic to our society - they're given higher grade point credits for taking them.  So for a young man or woman who wants to be competitive in the fight for college admissions (or whose parents wish him to be so), the AP designation is essential.   

The answer is obvious:  dumb down AP classes, take out that "objectionable material," omit what might be thought-provoking, "challenge" what may be challenging.  Is this destroy-the-village-to-save-it approach really less objectionable than a student's having to read a novel?  Literature used to be about expanding horizons and challenging preconceived notions.

 

 

Can The Sparkless USPS Light A Fire Under Congress?

USPS has announced it is planning to stop Saturday mail delivery by August.  This step has clearly been in the cards as one of the main ways to deal with ongoing losses.

Personally I oppose decreasing service - it creates a self-defeating spiral in which less service leads to even less use, then to more cuts in service.  (This same spiral prevails as cities try to save money by cutting bus routes, or as stores push back their opening hours from 9 to 10 to 11 .)   Further, if we must decide to cut one day's delivery per week, I'd argue for Wednesday or Thursday because the choice of Saturday means frequent occasions (i.e. those always-on-Monday holidays) when we'll encounter three consecutive days of non-delivery.

Well that's my two cents' worth, and we all know what two cents is worth these days.  So, moving on:

Assuming that the end of Saturday delivery is an effective way to help the USPS out of its difficulties, I have to applaud the moxie of Postmaster-General Patrick Donahoe's "Congress-be-damned" decision to try to move ahead with it.  There has been a bit of a kerfuffle over whether the Service actually has authority to take this step, but if it will serve either to implement the change, or to move Congress off the dime so they will order the change, it's worth the effort. 

What Senator Reid doesn't like is that Donahoe's announcement puts the spotlight on our legislators' dilatory attitude.  (Even the best and quickest plan Congress has come up with would delay implementation for two years, and require the USPS to devote countless additional hours during that period to "assessing" its effects on different sectors of the population.)

So, as with so much other unhandled Congressional business, it's really time to try to get something done. 

Superficial Strategy

Columnist/blogger Chris Cilizza in the Washington Post notes that Republicans have consistently polled far fewer electoral votes than Democrats over the past several Presidential campaigns, and this might explain the GOP's efforts, in states they control, to restack the electoral deck.   True!

Cilizza also limns his proposal for a potentially more successful strategy for Republicans, which is to concentrate their ads and campaign dollars on winning just a few key states with big clumps of electoral votes, for example Florida and Pennsylvania.  Also true, maybe, but possibly irrelevant.

I'm surprised by what's missing from this "strategy" -- what I consider a key element, which is that no matter how much money Republicans spend, or however much they attempt to "rebrand" (which to them evidently means putting the same policies into a shiny new package that might tempt more voters to try it), their fundamental message, if not changed, will remain unappealing to an ever-growing segment of the electorate.

Morning Fog describes itself as a proponent of moderation in politics.  The difficulty a moderate has with today's GOP is that it has abandoned some of the core principles that made it "grand," or allowed those principles to be distorted, by extreme partisans.  In a word, the Republican Party these days is immoderate.  It can start winning more electoral votes only when it makes a serious effort to reestablish a moderate political worldview.

Football U.S. Style - What's In A Name?

Yesterday's Superbowl game was more "super" than many that have been played over the years.  It included a surprising victory for the team that went into the match as the underdog, a higher-scoring game than many predicted, a stupendous 108-yard record-tying punt return on the first play of the second half, a 34-minute power outage that entirely shifted the momentum of the game, and a 22-point lead almost whittled away to a loss.

The game made me reflect for a moment on our local Washington Redskins.  They had a record this past season that was an amazing turnaround from their usual performance.  It got them to the playoffs, but not, alas, to the Superbowl.  That may have been just as well for them.  Watching the Baltimore team execute successful play after play, as they did in the first half; or the San Francisco team do the same in the second half after the power outage, it seemed pretty clear that if the Redskins had been playing either of those teams it could have been embarrassing for them.  (Even if they could have had their new star rookie quarterback - which they couldn't.) 

When the 'Skins failed in their playoff bid, a few do-gooders used the opportunity to suggest that Supreme Beings (not the Roberts court, but other ones) had willed them to lose because of their politically incorrect name, "Redskins."  There has been a lot of controversy for years, urging that the team change its name to something that wouldn't be ostensibly offensive to native-Americans, while the team's ownership and most of its fans have insisted they see no need to do so. 

I believe the team name probably will change at some point in the future.  But those who are agitating now also have a point - if the Redskins are, after many long years in the wilderness, finally strong enough to contest again for, and possibly win, the Superbowl championship, wouldn't it be a good thing to have lain this festering little sore aside, and mark that positive rejuvenation with a fresh name?

Personally I think the Redskins should change but there are better arguments for reasons to do so.  The first is that the name just sounds outdated.  Let's look back at the Superbowl:  

• The "Baltimore Ravens" - not potentially offensive to any group of humans, but also playing cleverly on the association of Edgar Allen Poe with the city, and carrying on the bird theme established by the city's baseball team, the Orioles. 
• The "San Francisco Forty-Niners," likewise a historic reference, a team name that we'd immediately associate with "Frisco," even if we didn't put "San Francisco" in front of it.  
• But then there are the Redskins.  What have redskins to do with Washington DC?  Doesn't the name more likely evoke Wyoming or Oklahoma? Or Idaho, if you think of redskins as a type of potato (albeit not grown in Idaho)?  The team is really a regional one - its headquarters are in Virginia, its stadium in Maryland - so perhaps we don't need "Washington" at all.  Combining that with a concept of what goes on here, how about the "Potomac Pettifoggers?"  No?  Well, nevertheless I'm sure we could come up with something smarter, more modern, and more descriptive of our area.

Second reason to change:   Hasn't the famously profit-oriented owner Dan Snyder recognized the potential for sales of new fan memorabilia?  With a new name, everyone would need new T-shirts, hoodies, banners, and cushions. 

Lies, Damned Lies, And Willful Lies

I have puzzled for months now over why senior Republican members of Congress would be raising such a ruckus as they have over the meaningless "issue" of how the Obama administration's State Department and CIA reported the torching of a U.S. building in Benghazi, Libya and the killing of American government officials there.  Innumberable observers, not just Secretary Clinton, have made the obvious points:   Mistakes can happen,  responsibility has been taken, and however the incident was reported, it doesn't change what occurred.   

So why would Republicans continue to belabor the point?  If they hoped to weaken Obama's reelection bid, it didn't work.   If they hope to discredit Clinton this far in advance of any potential run for President on her part, that just seems stupid. 

The light bulb went on today, though.  Skimming through an interesting piece about what a half-dozen major figures of the Bush administration have said in memoirs and elsewhere, regarding that President's false representation to the American public and the world about Saddam Hussein's WMD, it dawned on me:

The leading lights of the GOP know that their party's "brand" was seriously damaged by that fatal presentation at the UN ten years ago; now, with their badgering on Benghazi, they must have hoped, consciously or not, to establish that there was some parallel between the Obama administration's statements about Benghazi, and their own about Saddam Hussein.  If so, they're deluding themselves (something at which they showed considerable skill during the 2012 election campaign).