Intrepid Liberal Journal

Suite101.com

2011-03-07T21:45:00.001-05:00

I've decided that for at least the time being I will do freelance writing over at suite101.com. My first article entitled, Ideologically Conservative, Operationally Liberal & In Distress was just published on their site. I'll leave the Intrepid Liberal Journal up where my posts since 2005 can still be read and over thirty podcasts listened to.

At suite101.com I'll primarily write about politics and current affairs. However, I'll also venture into other topics of interest to me such as information science. Whenever a new article is posted I'll provide a link for it here at my old blogspot home. My thanks all those who followed me here at Intrepid Liberal Journal and I hope you'll continue to read me at suite101.com.

Bernie Sanders Gets It & Says It

2010-12-05T23:28:00.000-05:00

Alas, Sanders is only one of the remaining few willing and able to fight the good fight.

Arc of Identity

2010-07-11T17:02:00.001-04:00

I’ve been a loyal Democrat and devoted liberal my entire life. Even as a teenager when Reagan was popular with my generation, intuitively I knew his vision was wrong. So I worked my butt off for the party and registered voters. I did this on faith that the Democratic Party would be a vehicle for economic and social justice.

Yet a lingering disenchantment with the party always lurked like a nagging conscious and whispered doubts in my ear. Personal friends from my youth may recall how I often quipped that Republicans were the party of evil and Democrats the party of gutlessness. Alas, our winner take all system reinforces the two party duopoly, so I saw no viable alternative. And perhaps there never will be.

The good thing about the gutless party is that at least it wasn’t out to get me. Whereas those nasty Republicans seemed to suggest that if I as a secular Jew didn’t accept Jesus Christ as my personal savior, support school prayer and engaged in casual sex, I was condemned to eternal damnation. Furthermore, if I didn’t fully embrace the principles of predatory capitalism and aggressive military nationalism, I was not a loyal American in their eyes. The Republican Party’s racist “southern strategy,” gutter tactics and homophobia, also repulsed me.

So I rationalized supporting Democrats against what I deemed the party of evil. If we didn’t stand up for Bill Clinton then Newt Gingrich and his apostles of hate and greed would run amok. With respect to policy the Clinton administration made all sorts of compromises I didn’t agree with such as welfare reform. But his heart seemed in the right place and the technology bubble provided an illusion of prosperity and hope for wage earners across the board. Meanwhile, the Republicans had the temerity to impeach our duly elected president for getting a blowjob. I didn’t approve of Clinton’s personal conduct but abusing our Constitution over it bothered me more.

Through the year 2000, I remained a staunch liberal both ideologically and temperamentally. By temperament I mean I was willing to debate and listen to ideas from conservative acquaintances and relatives, even as I contradictorily regarded the GOP itself as an evil institution of hate mongering greed. I’ve never believed that I had a monopoly on wisdom and perhaps through the power of reason and a good faith give and take, we could find “common ground” for the greater good. Yeah, once upon a time I really did believe that.

After all, most of the conservatives I knew were decent people and didn’t perceive themselves, as enablers of hate mongering greed. I didn’t equate them with Republican politicians. So ideologically, I remained a traditional New Deal sort of liberal but in personal disposition I also believed it was important to remain intellectually flexible and receptive to changing realities. I still believe in that personally but in this country it doesn’t seem to work politically.

Then George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential election. No need to rehash the tale we all know so well. Suffice to say that I was PISSED! Pissed at how an American electorate could make an election close enough so Bush could steal it because they preferred him as someone they could have a beer with. Pissed that Ralph Nader and his supporters actually claimed there was no difference between Bush and Al Gore.

Pissed at a Democratic Party that crawled into a fetal position after Bush’s ascendancy and 9/11. Pissed at the reign of indecency under a Christian-fascist regime guided by neocons, immoral nationalists, predatory crony capitalists and religious zealots. A century from now, if the human race is still here, historians may well trace America’s decline to that 2000 election when predatory capitalism’s crusade that was launched by Reagan achieved its nirvana of destruction under Bush, Cheney and their merry band of “End Times” misogynists, corporatists, Ayn Rand fetishists and delusional believers of American exceptionalism.

During the 2002 midterm elections I looked upon my party of gutlessness in a new light. While Democrats would not overtly do me any harm they also wouldn’t stand up for me when Republicans pursued irrational wars or allowed predatory crony capitalism to destroy the American dream. It seemed the entire party was a self-gelding machine of ineptitude suffering from battered wife syndrome.

Then along came Howard Dean, a centrist governor from Vermont, who nonetheless was one of the few Democrats bold enough to fight the madness with his famous “What I want to know” March 15, 2003 speech in Sacramento. Inspired by Dean, a “netroots” movement took off to emancipate the Democratic Party from elite consultants and lobbyists to represent regular folks. Or so we believed.

For liberals like myself it was cathartic to encounter others who realized America was on a collision course with calamity and hungered for a Democratic Party with the spine to stand up and fight. In that despair and anger we felt under Bush and a corporatist media that failed to challenge the Bush administration’s distortion of reality emerged an exhilaration that we regular people would “force the spring” with a counter narrative of “truth.”

To my disgust Bush stole another election in 2004 and portrayed John Kerry, a man with four purple hearts, as soft. In opposition, both to the Republicans and status quo insider Democrats, many of us dug in our heels to save the party and the country. In February 2006, I posted an essay I was quite proud of entitled “Pro-Business Liberalism.” It was the first post I did that achieved any sort of notice and within the opening paragraph I identified a flaw that remains pervasive in the Democratic Party today:

“Meanwhile, the Democrats are enduring the worst perceptions among voters from both wings of their party: liberals reluctance to identify with pro-business policies makes the party appear in favor of handouts while the DLC reinforces the suspicion among voters that the Democrats are just as corporatist as the Republicans. It’s an odd contradiction and a rare feat of political ineptitude: the two wings of the party have managed to make Democrats appear socialist and corporatist at the same time.”

Over four years later and little has changed! President Barack Obama this past week was compelled to defend his administration for not being anti-business even as millions of Americans perceive it as beholden to predatory capitalists on Wall Street. The duality is undermining Obama’s administration and the Democratic Party’s effectiveness.Sadly, what the Democratic Party offers is predatory capitalism lite and nationalism with a veneer of multinational diplomacy.

And that leaves liberals like myself feeling adrift. My ideal of liberalism is to provide an indispensable alternative to revolution and reaction. I always envisioned liberalism as facilitating tangible positive change and reform at a pace that can be absorbed by society as a whole. I’m not a revolutionary. Revolutions are bloody. Reaction is also bloody. Hence, liberalism to me represented a means of how society could evolve and adapt to changing realities without bloodshed or overly harsh policies that hurt the most vulnerable among us. And hopefully empower and lift up those left behind in the free market’s rough and tumble.

In 2010 however, liberalism as defined by Democrats under Barack Obama is pursuit of that holy-grail independent voter who stands on the political fifty-yard line. The end result is the center of political gravity being pulled further to the radical right as liberalism continues to lose ground. And the body politic as a result can’t even do something modest like extend unemployment benefits as plutocratic millionaire corporatists complain about the deficit they largely created during the Bush years.

So as I reflect upon my political identity today it can be defined as weary of slogans, promises and personalities. I don’t believe in political parties or their platforms. I don’t believe in the dogma of ideology, be it left, right or middle. I don’t believe in silver tongued icons. I don’t believe in special interests, net roots movements, so called grass roots movements, moralizing politicians with nice haircuts, blow dried talking heads or careerist pundits with stock dividends in the system. I don’t believe in big government or the free market. I never believed organized religion could save anyone.

I do believe most people are decent, reasonable and competent. Our salvation, if it is to ever come, will happen on the community level when people pool their collective resources against predatory capitalists and their enablers in power with their own businesses, local financial credit lending institutions and reduce our own carbon footprints. Otherwise, in my lifetime, a bloody revolution, reaction or even a xenophobic civil war is inevitable.

Alas, liberalism never seemed so far away.

Independence Day & George Carlin

2010-07-04T21:48:00.002-04:00

Is there any country on this Earth more contradictory than mine? The late comedian George Carlin once observed in a classic rant that, “this country was founded by slave owners who wanted to be free.” Indeed, in that little rant, Carlin defined America’s contradictory soul: freedom and oppression.

I am proud of a country that allowed someone like Carlin to freely express himself and did not incarcerate him for his views. The man never spent any time in a gulag for telling it like it is and I love my country for that. And yet how sad that in two centuries plus our society has not evolved beyond a violent and greed based culture that wages war under the guise of freedom for the benefit of sociopathic multinational corporations.

So, on this Independence Day, our 234th birthday, I’m thinking about soldiers, fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing civilians, in the name of freedom as politically connected contractors benefit and cities such as Detroit disintegrate. I'm thinking about the millions of citizens who did nothing wrong and are unemployed thanks to Wall Street permissiveness. Those marvelous thieves who we bailed out and will continue to steal under the protective legal cover of financial reform. I'm thinking about a country founded by rationale secular men who believed freedom of religion also meant freedom from religion yet struggles to teach the theory of evolution in its classrooms. And I’m thinking about George Carlin and wondering what he say about it.

Predatory Conservatism Is Like A Venereal Disease

2010-06-16T21:16:00.003-04:00

A short post this evening. After President Obama’s speech last night I pondered how the hell we got here. I’m not simply referring to the oil spill but America’s and the world’s rapidly decaying condition.

Under George W. Bush liberals warned that America was on a collision course with calamity. I suppose one could describe the Bush regime as the culmination of forty years of predatory conservatism that favored wealth over work and corporate power over community interests. Sadly, Americans were seduced by predatory conservatism’s false promises of freedom, wealth and benevolent nationalism as our center of political gravity lurched to the radical right. As of 2010, America’s predatory conservative movement boasts a legacy of economic calamity, two failed military occupations, a crumbling infrastructure and an epic environmental catastrophe as the world spirals towards global warming at breakneck speed.

It’s almost as if predatory conservatism as personified under its prodigal son, George W. Bush, unleashed a metastasizing venereal disease upon our institutions, culture, fiscal solvency and sense of social responsibility. The disease requires bold aggressive treatment. Instead, under President Obama, conservatism’s venereal disease is being treated with mild ointment.

At best Obama’s ointment can reduce the sting somewhat. But it’s not reversing the disease, which continues to metastasize. Even worse, America’s body politic is recoiling from the mild ointment as if it’s worse than the disease itself that enabled Wall Street permissiveness and the British Petroleum oil spill.

I retain my personal admiration in President Obama. But that’s where we are today.

Support Chris Owens For State Committee

2010-06-13T20:02:00.001-04:00

It seems that entropy has been unleashed upon our lives. Hyper-sized banks, corrupt institutions, out of control developers and a political culture that wages class warfare against regular folks has taken a wrecking ball to the American dream. Here in Brooklyn, it seems that corporatist wrecking ball is on steroids. The best antidote is to support the best and the brightest of authentic progressive reformers locally.

I was reminded of that recently when Chris Owens shook hands at my Bergen Street subway station in Brooklyn last week. As readers of this blog may recall, Chris was my first podcast interview in 2006. He’s a true progressive who champions wage earners and community over the interests of developers. Chris is just the sort of person we need to represent core progressive values of decency and fairness with the Democratic State Committee for Brooklyn’s 52nd Assembly District. He's an independent voice and not part of the machine.

His campaign slogan says it best,

“Stop the corruption! End the dysfunction!”

As with any campaign, true progressive reformers such as Chris Owens are going up against well financed Goliaths who want no part of his people first agenda. Hence, support from the grass roots is critical.

I realize we’re all burned out and jaded on politics these days. That’s especially true with the horrific corruption and insipid governing happening in both Washington and Albany today. Action is empowering however and supporting Chris Owens to represent Brooklyn’s 52nd Assembly District in the State Committee is a means of thinking globally by acting locally.

That’s why I’m supporting his campaign and I hope you will too. Please click here to either join Chris Owens campaign as a volunteer or make a donation.

We need him.

If Only I Could Laugh

2010-06-13T13:51:00.012-04:00

If I didn’t care so much, if the stakes for civilization were not so high, if the fate of our ecosystem didn’t hang precariously in the balance and our blood and treasure were not so casually tossed aside on behalf of a crumbling empire, I could laugh. A hearty-belly laugh at the absurdity of current events, our mediocre at best leadership, the irredeemable whores of big industry, and the mindless corporate mouthpieces with expensive haircuts masquerading as journalists. Yes, I could laugh at the whole damn mess.

I could laugh at America’s bizarre political math that says unless sixty votes can be cobbled in the Senate we can’t do a damn thing without achieving some faux centrist nirvana at the expense of meaningful financial reform, overhauling immigration, a cleaner environment and energy independence. I could laugh at the even more bizarre math that says stimulus spending to create jobs is bad while spending trillions in Afghanistan and Iraq is good.

I could laugh at a political culture that simultaneously portrays President Obama as a radical Black Muslim Bolshevik and Wall Street corporatist hoping to score Goldman Sachs cash. I could laugh at how the Supreme Court will be even more hostile to wage earners, whistle blowers, the environment and civil liberties at the end of President Obama’s first term then it was at the beginning. I could laugh at how American tax payers may eventually bail out British Petroleum to clean up its mess in the Gulf.

I could laugh at how my home state of New York is on the brink of fiscal insolvency as mendacious Albany politicians grease the patronage mill for contracts that fatten their wallets, borrow and spend from pension funds and cut needed services for the poor, the elderly, the young, the old and the disabled. I could laugh at my Mayor Michael Bloomberg, as his let business be business philosophy allowed mob corruption to metastasize in the New York City Buildings Department, undermine the health and safety of millions of New Yorkers while his Honor retains the image of an above board technocrat. Heck of a job Mike!

I could laugh at how America’s center of political gravity is defined by xenophobes who belong in a lunatic asylum. We have Republican candidates in 2010 that want to return to the gold standard, privatize Social Security for the benefit of Wall Street parasites, and support more off shore drilling and even repeal civil rights legislation. And America's center-left is folding like a limp noodle. How funny is that?

I could laugh at how conservatism defines decency down. Nixon was crazier than Goldwater who today would be considered too liberal in the Republican Party. Reagan was even more of a ruthless class warrior against wage earners than Nixon and George W. Bush even more of a war monger then all of them combined. Then I could laugh at how the Tea Party makes George W. Bush and Dick Cheney almost seem like moderates. And I could laugh at how the American people might just put these people back in power in November 2010 and 2012.

I could laugh at how a Democratic White House gloated over the defeat of organized labor’s backed candidate in Arkansas Bill Halter in favor of the pro-corporatist Blanche Lincoln. I could laugh at how former President Bill Clinton who coveted organized labor’s support during his campaigns and his wife’s, demonized those who stood up for wage earners, health care and the environment.

Then I could laugh at how Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln’s first vote after her primary victory was in favor of a resolution to take away the power of regulating greenhouse emissions from the Executive Branch at the behest of the energy industry and the Chamber of Commerce. Thankfully the resolution was narrowly defeated but remarkable that faux populists like Blanche Lincoln can with a straight face say their vote is not for sale. I could laugh at that too.

If only I could laugh at it all. But none of it is damn funny.

Helen Thomas Speaks Her Mind

2010-06-07T23:06:00.006-04:00

As a teenager between the hours of 6PM to 9PM I often listened to sports talk radio host Art Rust, Jr. on WABC. Rust was a pioneer who as a black man broke down barriers to become a prominent media personality and important influence. Rust's call in talk show went well beyond sports and focused on our society as a whole. He had an enormous influence on me.

Rust was a courageous journalist who claimed illegal drugs were an epidemic in sports long before others in his profession did. It was also Rust who first made me aware of a subtle form of racism that existed in our culture when he observed that well spoken black athletes were typically described by white commentators as "articulate" as if we should be surprised they could speak. Rust often noted dryly that the same observation was seldom made about well spoken white athletes.

One evening in the late 1980s, Rust's program had callers voicing opinions about comments made by Isiah Thomas of the Detroit Pistons who claimed that if Larry Bird were black he'd be regarded as just another good player in the NBA. A black caller attempted to make excuses for Isiah Thomas about how he was interviewed after the heat of battle against the Celtics in the playoffs and wasn't responsible for his words. As I remember it, Rust cut him off and said, "Caller he spoke what was on his mind."

Helen Thomas (obviously no relation to Isiah Thomas!) spoke her mind last week when she said Jewish people should leave "Palestine" and return to where they come from to countries such as Poland, Germany and the United States. Historically, her comments are absurd. Millions of Jews were liquidated in Poland and Germany during the Holocaust. Israel was created largely as the result of a refugee crisis created by the Holocaust from countries who didn't want to accept any more Jewish people. Among the countries that had stringent immigration laws against Jews was the United States! And the reference to Germany and Poland suggests Jews should have just remained among people who had demonstrated their homicidal hostility against them.

Practically speaking, as I wrote in my previous post, if your position is that the Jews should simply leave Israel and give up on the Jewish state then you're not serious about a judicious peace. Israel has existed for over six decades and its not giving up its sovereignty any more than the United States is likely to give back territory it seized from Mexico in the 19th century. That is a non-starter. Yes, a symbolic admission of the Palestinians right of return and the hardships they endured from losing their homes in 1948 should be agreed too. I'm intensely critical of Israel's continuing occupation of the West Bank and blockade of Gaza. To suggest however that the Jews should simply leave Israel and return to where they came from is blatant anti-Semitism.

I have long admired Helen Thomas's career as a journalist. She often asked questions of Presidents that no one else dared. Her career also broke down barriers and made it possible for more women to cover the White House. A bigot is a bigot however and that is how she will be remembered. Even worse, her anti-Semitic diatribe has made it more difficult for an honest critique of Israeli policies and discussion of the disproportionate influence of the Israeli lobby. The happiest people of all right now about her comments are none other than AIPAC and Bibi Netenyahu.

Heck of a job Ms. Thomas. And good riddance.

Memo To Senator Russ Feingold: Lead the Charge Against the Israeli Lobby

2010-06-06T20:20:00.004-04:00

As an American Jew, I’ve received two constant messages since childhood: Israel’s existence is essential to our survival and Jewish people must remain vigilant against oppression. Hence, whenever Israel was criticized such as the war against the PLO in Lebanon war in 1982, closing ranks among Jewish people was instinctive. Indeed, closing ranks was easy regardless of differing politics on other issues. Most of us have family who died in the Holocaust prior to Israel’s existence. Anti-Semitism is real and Israel’s enemies among the Mid-East’s autocratic oppressive regimes are hardly sympathetic.

Also, it was easy to rationalize sustaining the occupation that occurred after the Six Day War in 1967 when the Palestinians engaged in terrorism. It was easy to perceive and rationalize Israeli’s actions as defensive and certainly not oppressive.

As a result, the voice of American Jews was AIPAC centric and monolithic. Well, the time has long past for American Jews to confront harsh truths. Until we do and are upfront about it, America’s political leadership will remain skittish and reluctant to do what’s right. And why should we fear the truth? As one of my favorite bloggers, Martin Longman of Booman Tribune observed in a recent post:

“One of the interesting things about Israel is that it is much more self-critical and contemplative than most people give it credit for. All you really have to do to prove this to yourself is to read their left-wing press. You'll quickly discover that Jews living in Israel consistently publish things in the newspaper that our mainstream media would never allow to see the light of day.”

So if the Israel press can be honest about itself why can’t we? One truth is that Jewish people today are far less oppressed than most in this cruel and barbaric world. Yes, anti-Semitism still exists both in America and abroad. For the most part however, my generation of fellow Jews have successfully assimilated in the respective cultures we live in. We’re not excluded from jobs or universities because we’re Jewish anymore. Nobody has refused to be my friend because I’m Jewish. I’m assimilated yet my identity as a Jew still remains and is not threatened.

Yes a strong Israel deserves credit for helping Jewish people become more secure in the world. And I staunchly defend Israel’s right to exist. You may disagree with Israel’s founding in 1948 but Jewish people were in exile after the Holocaust and at the time most nations were not accepting Jewish refuges. Israel was essential and sixty two years later it’s irrational and wrong to expect the Jewish state to just disappear. That’s a non-starter and if that’s your position you expose yourself as not being interested in a just peace.

Sadly though, we now have to confront another harsh truth. Israel’s image as a little country defying the odds in a hostile region fueled by aggressive Arab nationalism is no longer valid. Indeed, most Sunni Arab states today know Israel is here to stay and would prefer the Israel/Palestinian conflict disappear so they could focus instead on the threat posed by Iran. The Sunni-Arab states are far more concerned with Islamic fundamentalism that undermines their stability and power than Israel.

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank coupled with its failed blockade of Gaza is playing into its enemies hands and undermines the national security interests of its greatest benefactor: the United States. Yes the peace activists from the Turkish flotilla were being provocative and Israel clumsily and amateurishly gave them the incident they wanted. War is politics by other means and Israel never misses an opportunity to inflict harm on itself.

Admittedly, I myself have been too slow and knee jerk to defend Israeli policies even as I critiqued my own country for pursuing the folly of the “global war on terror.” Since the second Lebanon war took place in 2006 however I’ve belatedly come to the realization that Israel's political class is irredeemable and can't be trusted.

It’s also remarkable to me that Jews who are liberal on most issues and regard most conservative positions in recent years to be irrational, take comfort in the uncritical support of insane right wing pundits such as Charles Krauthammer. This is a man who recently wrote a column alleging that environmentalists contributed to the British Petroleum disaster in the Gulf. I’m supposed to just accept that such a person is wise with respect to obtaining peace in the Middle East? As John Boehner might say, hell no!

The only viable solution is a just two state solution that ensures Israeli security and autonomy for the Palestinians. Ultimately such a solution will resemble the settlement that Bill Clinton attempted to negotiate in the waning days of his administration. To get there, American Jews need to flex their political muscle in a new direction.

It’s up to Jews the world over, especially American Jews, to empower their elected leaders to persuade Israel to turn their blockade of Gaza over to the international community. In such an arrangement, Hamas will be under the microscope like it never has been before and the Palestinian Authority that has made tremendous self-governing progress in the West Bank will be further empowered.

One way Jewish people can influence the conversation away from the monolithic AIPAC media spin machine is to contribute to J-Street, an organization of progressive Jews attempting to establish a counterweight to the Israeli apologist lobbying machine. American politicians will never take on this lobby unless they have cover from Jewish people willing to speak up. J-Street is rather like Israel was in its early days, an underdog up against giants.

What would also help is some kind of gesture from an American Jewish politician sympathetic to J Street’s views but with credibility as a friend of Israel. A dramatic speech at J-Street’s offices might empower congress and the Obama administration to pursue another course.

I nominate Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold for the job. He’s a true liberal who has never been shy about going against the grain and doing what’s right on issues such as civil liberties. Feingold’s often spoken of the enormous pride he has in his Jewish heritage – a pride that I share.

I urge anyone reading this to either email or telephone Senator Feingold’s office and ask him to take a stand against the Israeli lobby.

No More Hiatus

2010-06-06T13:46:00.002-04:00

During my twenties a decade ago, I worked at a wholesale ophthalmic lens warehouse in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn. It was my job to open as many accounts as I could nationwide via telemarketing as well as troubleshoot customer complaints. It was a tough way to earn a living but I gave it everything I had. Anyway, one of my favorite all time work colleagues who ran the stock lens floor had this saying:

“It’s an imperfect world and we are very much a part of this world.”

He sagely repeated this to me often as I struggled with mishaps that occurred daily and impacted my commission. All kinds of things would go wrong and it seemed I had dissatisfied customers screaming at me every hour. Lenses would be picked wrong, mishandled, or the messenger services were late with their deliveries. Our customers were mom and pop size opticians and optometrists competing with large chains such as Lens Crafters that promised instantaneous turnaround at discount prices. So whenever we screwed up (which happened frequently) I heard about it.

Earning the trust and loyalty of these customers tested my patience and endurance. The wholesale ophthalmic lens industry is intensely competitive with respect to pricing and when shipping charges are factored there is hard bargaining over pennies. We were competing with services far more local to these customers nationwide and simultaneously vying with larger operations than ours to maintain our own client base in Brooklyn. So the customers had plenty of alternatives if they were dissatisfied with us. However, mistakes in the industry among wholesale operations such as ours was common and our competitors were hardly superior. So if a relationship with the customer could be maintained, the rough waters were easier to navigate.

Adding to the challenge was that quality of our customer service was contingent upon the conscientiousness of people who barely earned more than minimum wage with no health benefits or seemingly any stake in the company’s growth. Meanwhile, the two owners of the company I answered to were often fighting each other and had no patience for excuses (such as their polycarbonate lenses being overpriced). I also didn’t have health benefits and there was no pension plan for any of us. One of the owners even tried to motivate me one day by saying that if I consistently hit certain sales targets he could retire. Why he thought that would inspire me I can’t say.

And yet, the education from the experience of those years was indispensable to me and even resembled politics. I learned early on that both the customers and the lens pickers I relied upon respected sincerity and despised phoniness. Being glib, over promising, making excuses and trying to cover your butt with untruths when mistakes were made never worked.

So I found my voice and played it straight with all the constituencies I dealt with: customers, bosses and my frustrated overworked colleagues. When we screwed up an order I acknowledged it and persuaded my bosses to make amends to the customer. If I couldn’t offer a better price on a particular product I admitted it but offered to help the customer on something else they bought frequently. With my colleagues on the lens floor and billing departments I was with them in the pits, sharing their gallows humor and owning up to my own mistakes which made it easier to get a better performance from them. They didn’t have a commission stake like I did but their work ethic was real and treating them with respect went a long way.

My bosses were tough to handle, as they sometimes wanted me to compromise my integrity with clients or co-workers but overtime they realized it was an asset to have somebody that everyone trusted. Maintaining my credibility became integral to their bottom line.

The experience was often humbling, as I didn’t have all the answers or solutions to every crisis of the moment that emerged. It was also a challenge because as anyone who knows me can tell you, I am hardly a social butterfly. Often I wished I could just retreat from the whole thing and bury my head in the sand. As the years went by though I had a loyal customer base. One of my customers, an optometrist from Indiana said to me one day that,

“I appreciate how you listen to what I need more than you try to sell.”

I think about those years working in Sheepshead Bay Brooklyn as I observe today’s political discourse and reflect upon the art of political blogging. Alas, our political conversation today is more about “branding” than listening, learning or dealing with challenges truthfully. The right, left, middle and everything in between are stuck in this loop of over the top shouting and equivocation.

Years of blogging and activism burned me out on the whole thing and retreating seemed preferable to trying to shout louder than the Tea Partiers, the Birthers or anarchists who claim there is no daylight between George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And then you have those elitist institutional pundits such as David Brooks and David Broder, who believe it’s OK to split the difference on reality in the name of centrism.

Shouting won’t get it done and neither will silence.

So, I’m going to resume posting again from my corner of the universe when I have the time and inclination. And I like I did in Sheepshead Bay, I’ll plug away in my own way. Some will follow. Some will be persuaded. Some won’t give a damn. Some honest well minded folks will point out when I’m wrong. Others will gratuitously shout.

We live in a very imperfect world and our country is very much apart of that world. Problems and challenges abound in all directions.

Hopefully, overtime I’ll reach enough sane and decent people who can make a difference.

Goodbye For Now

2010-01-31T16:22:00.002-05:00

My apologies for going so long without a post or update of any kind. I am awed and overwhelmed by the emails asking of my whereabouts and well being. No I have not disappeared from the face of the Earth. Rather, even we bloggers are people with lives beyond the virtual world of the Internet. Personal and professional demands have simply inhibited my ability to maintain the high standards and dedication I gave to this blog from November 2005 to the first few months of 2009.

It was always my intention to return with commentary and podcast interviews and so I never provided any sort of update. I always assumed I would get around to it. But the weeks and months passed and the personal demands on my attention have only intensified. Also, merely keeping this site fresh with shallow “micro blogging” Twitter style posts has never interested me. Plenty of that exists on the Internet with or without me.

I dedicated nearly four years of my life to this blog and done my best to provide substantive analysis as well as present readers/listeners with compelling insights from thinkers in over thirty podcast interviews. I am proud of the body of work this site represents and will keep it up for as long as blogger allows. However, I am disabling the comments function because I am unable to monitor them consistently and at this point, most comments are attempts at Spam anyway. I still intend to resume blogging once outside concerns lessen.

Frankly, I am burnt out and disenchanted with our political discourse. I deeply despair that America is sliding into an abyss of banality when maturity and seriousness of purpose is most required during this era of calamity. This banality is pervasive on the right, left and everything in between. Responding for example to all of President Obama’s knee jerk apologists and gratuitous critics requires more time, energy and patience than I currently possess.

I will remain an activist on behalf of causes, issues and policies I believe in even as I take a respite from blogging. One can make a difference in this world without twittering about every thought they have. I encourage any and all to remain activists and think globally by acting locally.

We Must Fill the Void Ourselves

2009-08-30T20:23:00.007-04:00

Like millions of my fellow citizens, I am reflecting after the death of Ted Kennedy. Death is an egocentric experience for the survivors. Indeed, rituals such as funerals, wakes or in the Jewish religion “sitting Shiva,” is really about nurturing the souls of those left behind. That is also true when it is a public figure or celebrity that has died. We may never have met them or knew them yet they touched us nonetheless. The Kennedy family understands this better than anyone and is well practiced in rituals that not only honor the dead but comfort the living.

President John Kennedy and Robert Kennedy were assassinated before I was born. They touched my parents, but to me they were legendary martyrs and almost mythical. In 1980 however, their very real brother delivered the first political speech that ever captured my attention at the Democratic convention. I was only a kid but inspired by Kennedy’s defiant idealism following defeat. As I grew older, I appreciated Kennedy’s quest to stand up for the voiceless as predatory conservatism systematically destroyed the hopes and dreams of society’s most vulnerable. Remarkably, Kennedy always managed to fight the good fight with a smile even as he remained true to his principles.

Kennedy’s civility and statesmanship was rightly extolled among his colleagues as ideologically diverse as Chris Dodd and Orin Hatch. And certainly there is virtue with respect to how Kennedy never looked upon his adversaries as “enemies.” Hence, Kennedy forged a record and legacy as America’s most accomplished liberal legislator. More children have health insurance because of his legislative partnership with Orin Hatch. More Americans were empowered to vote because of his crossing party lines to collaborate with Bob Dole. In 1982, Kennedy joined forces with a young conservative Senator from Indiana named Dan Quayle so more citizens would receive job training.

Kennedy’s generosity of spirit as so many conservative voices demonized him and his family is an inspiration we can all learn from. True Kennedy was a flawed man and his dishonorable and irresponsible conduct resulted in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne. If I were a member of her family I likely could never forgive. Yet I find it ironic how so many conservative critics who champion Christian values could find so little virtue in Kennedy’s personal quest for redemption. Kennedy was a flawed man with his heart in the right place who tried to do well. Alas, too many politicians are intolerant of the imperfections of others and pursue policies that cause more harm than good.

Yet as members of the establishment political class honor Kennedy’s “bipartisanship” we should never forget that his political leverage stemmed from authenticity and conviction. When other Democrats preferred triangulation Kennedy unapologetically carried the liberal banner. In 2002 and 2003, while too many Democrats cowered as the Bush administration pursued a reckless war of choice with Iraq, Kennedy unequivocally and forcefully opposed it. Ultimately, Kennedy’s strength and compassion, enhanced the stature of those who entered into principled compromises with him. With all due respect to Orin Hatch, without Ted Kennedy he was just another callous conservative.

In comparison, one’s stature simply cannot be enhanced by compromising with tools of the medical industrial complex such as senators Max Baucus and Evan Bayh. How can anyone with an ounce of common sense or deductive reasoning have any faith in any compromise forged by plastic figures like those two agents of corporatism? To be sure, many Democrats, in the House especially are unwavering in their support of the public option. Sadly though, President Obama has sent mixed signals about how staunchly he supports it and key Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee such as Max Baucus are more beholden to the insurance companies than their constituents.

Kennedy's absence from the debate has left a void that is being filled with feckless Democrats, corporate shills and homicidal right wing ideologues. It’s an enormous void that will take many figures and years to fill. Presently, I don’t see anyone on the scene, including I regret to say, President Obama, who has the political intuition and will to fill it. Kennedy understood that politics was intensely personal. As a figure who suffered great personal loss he tapped into raw emotions on behalf of the voiceless better than any Democrat since his brother Robert Kennedy.

Today, as I mourn Senator Kennedy, I am also thinking about my best friend from high school. My friend prefers to remain anonymous so I’ll refer to him as John Doe or JD. JD and I re-established contact after almost no communication for the preceding twenty plus years through online social networking. Isn’t it strange how life works that way? JD and I talked nearly every day for four years but after graduating we went our separate ways.

Anyway, I learned that three years ago, JD sustained a brain injury following a car accident and is currently disabled. Previously, JD was professionally successful and thriving. He also married and has a six year old daughter. The fates were not kind to my friend and the accident has turned his life upside down. Today, JD is desperately motivated to rehabilitate, recover and resume an active life. Sadly, the medical industrial complex is an obstacle to his getting better. Here is how JD described his most recent encounters with insurance bureaucrats:

“I should send my story to a town hall meeting to explain why health care needs to be a single payer. I went to an orthopedic for the first time today as my back is killing me. After 3 years of shots to numb the pain and non-stop pain killers I feel it is time to try and find the cause and not just numb it, which does not work.

I gave the orthopedist rep at the front desk my no fault information and expected stupidly that it would just go through without a problem. Of course that did not happen. She called No Fault and was told that my account was closed on 7/5/09 and that I was not entitled to any further payment for my injuries.

I knew this was BS as they just agreed to pay for a different doctor last week and even if this was true you would think that would have notified me.”

Already, JD’s experience is sadly familiar for too many citizens. Yet his frustration would only get worse:

“This day was the first time I was told that I was denied going to a orthopedic doctor in 2006 as I was told then I did not need it. I told the supervisor on the phone that I found this strange considering that today was the FIRST time I had even gone to an orthopedist so how could I be refused something that I have never gone to before to see if I could even get any help from them. I then said that it makes no sense because they continue to pay for my pain management doctor, which basically just gives me shots in my back and medication for pain. In other words I said to the supervisor, you will pay for me to get drugs and be numb but you won't pay to fix the problem?”

JD’s experience grew even more absurd:

“This idiot then said that if I want to challenge this ruling that I would have to send them further information proving that I have these problems in my back and neck that would warrant this care. I have gone thru that before and I could tell you stories about that. But I said, OK I could do that as I had all of that paper work in the orthopedics office now and I could fax it immediately.

He THEN said something beyond stupid. That because the IME was in 2006 there was a chance that the doctor would not be found to review the addendum to change his mind. Yet, the doctor that said I was fine would have to get the new information and than have to admit that he was wrong, which isn’t happening. To further piss me off, the supervisor tells me that even if I send in the information that if the doctor could not be found that even the new information would not change anything, they could not contact another doctor to review it and that their original opinion would stand. So I said to the guy, you are saying that if I show you proof that I have these problems you STILL may not pay for this? He said yes. I said that is BS. I then ranted on him how could I be denied seeing an orthopedic before I even TRIED to go to one before. The guy was an idiot so I said that I wanted to speak to HIS supervisor. The guy said that I can but he will say the same thing. I said I still want to talk to him. He took my number and said he did not know when he would get back to me.

I went to the doctor anyway as I was there for 2 hours, stressed out of my gord, and having the doctor submit it to No Fault, have them deny it and then go thru my medical.”

I felt helpless and angry as I read this closing paragraph from my friend:

“This is yet another stupid war I have had with these people over the last 3 years. They expect me to give up by giving me the run around and I refuse to until they give in. They push and push as most people would just give up. THIS is why we need a single payer Medicare for all so this shit won't happen. I just want to get better and these idiots are making it harder for me to do so.”

Ted Kennedy who knew tragedy and loss was on the side of people like my friend. It was often a lonely fight as he went up against the institutional strength and money of the medical industrial complex. Making the fight even harder is that too many of Kennedy’s colleagues in both parties have served as enablers of the parasitic insurance industry. Indeed, the struggle for economic and social justice must have often felt to Kennedy like he was climbing a greased hill in bare feet. Even so he continued to put every scrap of prestige and talent at his disposal in pursuit of a more prosperous and just society. The “cause” endured for him far longer than his personal ambitions. Alas, too many figures today care more about being big than doing good.

There is no single figure anymore that possesses the combination of gravitas and will to stand up for people like my friend as Ted Kennedy did throughout his career. It is therefore incumbent upon all of us to fill the void Kennedy left behind. As JD confided to me recently, until his accident he didn’t have much interest in politics. Today JD understands just how high the stakes of political discourse are. On any given day, any one of us could have their lives turned upside down just like my old friend from high school.

Ted Kennedy, who had his life turned upside down numerous times understood that better than anyone.

The Good Fight: Taking On the Axis of Greed

2009-08-02T16:29:00.008-04:00

Arkansa's Blue Dog Mike Ross
George W. Bush coined the phrase “Axis of Evil” during his infamous 2002 State of the Union speech in referring to Iraq, Iran and North Korea. It should be obvious to Americans by now that what really undermines our security as a people is an Axis of Greed compromised of Wall Street, fossil fuel’s Energy Industrial Complex and the Medical Industrial Complex. These are the people that confiscate assets from communities to enrich the mega rich, undermine the environment and promote wars in foreign lands for oil and make it damn hard for millions of people to get affordable healthcare for any illness more serious than a common cold.

This Axis of Greed represents an entrenched juggernaut of corporate power and moneyed interests with tentacles inside the media as well as the corridors of power in Washington and every state capital. Electing Democrats by itself was never going to be enough as the fight over health-care reform illustrates. With Republicans out of power, money that previously went to Republicans is now funneled to conservative Blue Dog Democrats. Hence, my posts earlier this year describing Senators Evan Bayh and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus as “Corporatist Class Warriors.”

First, let us review the good news. Yes, believe it or not, there is good news to speak of in this righteous struggle against the Axis of Greed. What has been achieved is that the battle is finally joined after four decades of predatory conservatism. Barack Obama in ‘08 and congressional majorities in ’06 and ’08 were elected with a mandate of reform and change. Many Democrats, including the president himself were supported with small donations from regular folks. Hence, there is an actual fight taking place and liberals finally have allies in the White House and congress with teeth and progressive sensibilities.

Predatory conservatism is discredited and despite a recent rough patch for President Obama, the Axis of Greed has been forced to negotiate on political terrain less favorable to them than ever before. Also, President Obama has proven an effective counter-puncher whenever his back is up against the wall and I suspect that lesson will be relearned by his adversaries during the congressional recess in August.

Remember, initially opponents of the economic stimulus package defined the terms of debate but once Obama counter-punched the Economic Recovery Act Passed – albeit at far less than liberals like me had hoped. That will likely be the end results with respect to health care reform, cap and trade legislation and attempts to reform Wall Street with a consumer protection agency – Obama’s counter-punching will salvage enough political space to advance the ball even as liberals like me are disappointed.

Unfortunately, in America, merely winning elections with large majorities is not enough when taking on the Axis of Greed and the playing field is still tilted in their favor. Enough Democrats in southern and rural districts remain obstacles to change. This poses a strategic dilemma for Democrats and liberals. Democrats need the Blue Dogs to caucus with them in order to maintain a majority.

Yet these very same Blue Dogs are opposed to core Democratic Party values such as health-care that benefits people instead of HMOs. Indeed, the Blue Dogs are more concerned with the well being of the Medical Industrial Complex and fear that a strong public option will force insurance companies to charge more reasonable prices for medication. They feel more beholden to financial contributors at Goldman Sachs, Exxon and Aetna than the hard working farmers, wage earners and small business entrepreneurs who voted for them.

The upshot is that for all the terrific organizing done the previous two election cycles and the incredible way the Internet has transformed campaign financing, the Axis of Greed still has the dollars and institutional strength to shift the end product of legislation in their favor. Through the power of advertising and their allies in the corporate media, the Axis of Greed can scare the public with myths and disinformation to undermine needed investments in infrastructure, education or making health-care affordable for the single Mom working three jobs. Blue Dog congressional Democrats who rely on the support of constituents earning less than $40,000 a year will not support tax increases on millionaires to help pay for health-care for everyone because they fear the Axis of Greed more than that those constituents they allegedly represent.

So does that mean we give up and throw in the towel? Hell no! It means we have more work to do and our struggle is just beginning. In recent years we have successfully harnessed our natural constituencies in cities and minority demographics to achieve a majority. And thanks to previous Democratic National Committee Chairman, Howard Dean, the Democratic Party is a presence in states and communities it previously wasn’t.

But there is still an organizing lag for liberals in too many rural communities. Unions are especially weak in these districts and people like Arkansas House Democrat Mike Ross for example who triumphantly boast that they “slowed down” health-care reform, need to be convinced that favoring the Axis of Greed over the people will cause him real political pain. As opensecrets.org reveals, two of Congressman Ross’s top five industry contributors in the 2009-2010 campaign cycle are health-care professionals and Pharmaceutical/Healthcare Products. Ross is merely one example of a stark reality: until he fears his constituents more than the Axis of Greed, nothing will ever change and not even the rhetorical gifts of President Obama will be enough.

Meaningful change is going to take a long time. We’re only in the first inning of an extra inning game requiring resolve, endurance, patience and resilience. President Obama will sign watered down health-care legislation and call it reform this year. He will have no choice. In a few years we will hopefully be able to revisit the issue with greater political strength.

Obama will also have no choice but to sign watered down cap and trade legislation. Given the current pace of global warming it also won’t be good enough and will have to be revisited when the political terrain is more favorable - and hopefully won't be too late too save the planet. Finally, the Wall Street economy will have some more reforms but the huge imbalances in the system will not be addressed any time soon if plutocrats such as Treasury Timothy Geithner have anything to say about it.

This is a long, tough, righteous and worthy fight. I’m in all the way for as long as it takes. We all need to be.

The Death of Why?: An Interview With Author Andrea Batista Schlesinger

2009-07-19T17:59:00.005-04:00

The phrase “knowledge is power” is a cliché in our culture. Yet as often as we hear it from others or speak it ourselves, how often have we contemplated the process of acquiring knowledge? Is there a blueprint for obtaining knowledge and wisdom? Are we encouraging children to be intellectually curious or merely teaching them that every question has an instant and obvious answer?

In her book, The Death of Why?: The Decline of Questioning and the Future of Democracy (Berrett-Kohler Publishers), New York City policy expert Andrea Batista Schlesinger writes that,

“Why is the first question most children ask. With this question we express, to the delight and chagrin of our parents, our power.

In my life, questions have always been power. Asking them enabled me to overcome the challenges I faced as a young woman sitting at tables where I didn’t automatically belong.”

Although only thirty-two, Schlesinger has operated in the arena of policy debates locally in New York City and nationally for over a decade. Since 2002, Schlesinger has applied her background in public policy, politics, and communications to transform the Drum Major Institute (“DMI”) into a progressive policy think tank with national impact. During her tenure as Executive Director, DMI created its Marketplace of Ideas series which highlights successful progressive policies from across the country and launched two public policy blogs that reach several thousand readers a day; and embarked on a national program to nurture careers in public policy for college students from underrepresented communities.

Recently, Schlesinger took a leave of absence from DMI to serve as a senior policy adviser to the re-election campaign of New York City mayor Michael R. Bloomberg – a decision that is controversial among New York City liberals like myself. Prior to joining DMI, Schlesinger directed a national Pew Charitable Trusts campaign to engage college students in discussion about the future of Social Security and served as the education adviser to Bronx borough president and mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer.

The one life lesson Schlesinger has learned above all others in her career and promotes passionately her book is that questions equals power. It is Schlesinger’s contention that our culture promotes instant answers at the expense of inquiring.

With this book, Schlesinger has four primary objectives:

1) Convince readers of the importance of inquiry in our democracy;

2) Illustrate how the very institutions that should be encouraging inquiry such as schools, the media, and government, the Internet are instead undermining intellectual curiosity in our society;

3) Inspire readers with hopeful examples of people working to restore inquiry to its rightful place of importance;

4) Convey a sense of urgency among citizens to develop effective “habits of the mind” and not be easily seduced by instant easy sound bite answers to complex challenges such as global warming.

Death of Why, is a well researched and scrupulously sourced eleven chapters and 215 pages of text. Where Schlesinger’s book is especially provocative is when she takes bloggers like me to task for engaging in robotic group-think and avoiding engagement with people possessing different viewpoints.

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo said that,

"The road to wisdom is asking 'why'? Andrea Batista Schlesinger has been asking 'why?" and supplying her own bright and thoughtful answers for long enough so that some of us suggested she write a book. It's foruntate for all of us that her answer was 'why not!'"

The publisher of The Nation, Kathleen vanden Heuvel added that,

"From her start in politics as a teenager Andrea Batista Schlesinger has asked the important questions. Now she asks her most important: are we teaching young people to value inquiry, and if not, what hope can we have for the future of democracy?"

Schlesinger graciously agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me this afternoon about her book. She was engaging and assertive in a conversation that was just over forty-six minutes. Among the topics discussed and debated is her contention that we’re ideologically segregated, her argument that the Internet has reinforced a destructive group think mentality in our society, her advocacy for civics education and objection to teaching “financial literacy” in public schools and we closed by discussing her decision to join Mayor Bloomberg’s re-election campaign as a senior policy adviser.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by either searching for the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

The Ultimate Organizer: An Interview With ACORN's Founder Wade Rathke

2009-07-12T15:57:00.006-04:00

It seems no matter which political party in America holds the majority, a Washington/Wall Street corporate centric axis dominates policy making. Indeed, Illinois Democratic Senator Dick Durbin recently observed that banks, “Frankly Own the Place.” Among liberal-progressive activists like myself, this condition has facilitated a confrontational mindset.

Our experience suggests that the power and wealth concentrated in the hands of a few will not be voluntarily relinquished. Hence, everything from healthcare reform to bankruptcy protection for aggrieved homeowners is perceived by many of us as a high stakes pitched battle between struggling families and feculent corporate behemoths. Although activism has certainly facilitated important victories on behalf of working people, fighting for economic justice often seems analogous to climbing an endless wall.

Veteran activist Wade Rathke has been steadily climbing that wall on behalf of working people for forty-years. As the founder of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform (“ACORN”), Rathke has a unique perspective about what community organizing strategies work best to empower working people that are struggling to save and accumulate wealth. Rathke is also an assertive advocate for welfare benefits on behalf of people out of work. He’s both won and lost more than his share of battles. Both he and ACORN have the battle scars of scrutiny liberals typically receive from standing up for America’s poor and disenfranchised.

In Citizen Wealth: Winning the Campaign To Save Working Families, (Berrett-Koehler), Rathke writes,

“We need to create a national economic and political consensus that increasing family income, wealth and assets is not `welfare’ or an entitlement ‘give-away’ program but an investment in the public good and well-being.”

His book is an accessible thirteen chapters and 171 pages of text presenting his blueprint to organize regular folks to win economic and political power. Rathke’s book also contains revealing anecdotes about ACORN’s negotiations with corporate entities such as H&R Block and their bank, HSBC, to end the predatory practice of Refund Anticipation Loans. Perhaps the most compelling topic in his book is covered in chapter nine when Rathke laments how millions of citizens eligible for Food Stamps, Medicaid and the State Children Health Insurance Program (“SCHIP”) are disenfranchised from participating in the very programs designed to help them.

Rathke has remained involved with organizing activities after leaving ACORN in 2008. He is the founding board member of the Tides Foundation as well as the chief organizer of SEIU Local 100 in New Orleans and publisher of Social Policy magazine. He posts regularly at the Chief Organizer blog.

Rathke agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and among the topics covered is the meaning of citizen wealth, why economic justice has lagged behind expanded civil liberties for minorities and women, the methodology of ACORN’s approach to fight H&R Block’s predatory practices of Refund Anticipation Loans, the criticisms ACORN and the Community Reinvestment Act have received about the housing crisis and his belief that worker/labor organization is imperative for all segments of society. Our conversation was twenty-eight and a half minutes.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Sunday Summer Musings

2009-07-05T14:31:00.003-04:00

As regular readers of this blog have noted to me via email, I have posted infrequently in recent weeks. Although I’ve conducted podcast interviews with interesting subjects and have more scheduled over the summer, personal matters have required my attention. Hence, I haven’t been able to comment on recent events. Some of you have emailed asking if I’m doing OK. Rest assured, I am fine and this has only been a temporary respite from blogging. Like many of you, I have been following current events both nationally and internationally as well as locally in my home state. A few observations and thoughts below:

Curiously, the lack of coherent conservative political opposition is undermining the progressive cause and reinforcing the Washington/Wall Street axis. President Obama and much of the Democratic Party appears content to remain risk averse, hoard political capital as “Blue Dog” Democrats such as Evan Bayh and Max Caucus continue to be whores for the private insurance industry and the moneyed interests. With the Republican Party in disarray, the Obama administration has no incentive to go beyond the political fifty-yard line and transform America from a corporate national security state to a society that facilitates broad based prosperity for real entrepreneurs and wage earners. Meanwhile, the corporate press falsely portrays the national debate as between the “liberal” Obama administration and “mainstream” critics. Sadly, and it pains me to write this, enablers of America’s modern gilded age have merely hit the “reset button” with the Obama administration. I like Al Franken and I’m happy he will finally take his rightful place as Minnesota’s junior senator. But that magical sixtieth vote will not transform the landscape all that much. As Illinois Senator Dick Durbin candidly put it earlier this year, the banks “frankly own the place.”

In my opinion, Bernie Madoff is a scapegoat for the crimes on Wall Street. Madoff will spend the rest of his days in prison and deservedly so. I have no sympathy for him. However, the looters at Goldman Sachs, Citicorp and A.I.G. are just as guilty if not more so than Madoff. Yet they’re benefiting from billions of dollars subsidized by taxpayers as state and municipal governments barely hang on. It seems to me that Madoff as the public face of Wall Street’s crimes is enabling plutocrats in Washington and the financial services industry to avoid accountability and needed restructuring of our economy. Two decades ago, Michael Milken became the public face of Wall Street’s excess and nothing changed. If Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and the administration’s senior economic advisor, Timothy Geithner have their way, the Wall Street/Washington axis will continue to conduct business as usual. Their so-called “reforms” are cosmetic only and will not facilitate the systemic change our economy so desperately needs.

Enablers of the Washington/Wall Street axis are the cozy relationship between “journalists” and the lobbyists of corporate America. The recent news about the Washington Post selling access to corporate lobbyists simply reinforces what the American people have sensed in their guts for a long time: the “truth” is purchased, packaged and sold. Americans across the political spectrum know this intuitively and that as much as anything explains the decline of traditional media in the Internet age. To some degree this is regrettable because nobody exposed local corruption better than those old time city newspapers with reporters mining sources among the worker bees at city hall. Also, the Internet and blogs are hardly a panacea of journalism. Regardless, the Washington/Wall Street access can only be broken from outside and that means we the people have to become our own journalists.

It seems that the real conflict in Iran is between their security forces and factions among the clerics. The valiant protesters are really pawns for the real power struggle-taking place. Even so, hopefully the people who bravely stood up and risked their lives represent a window into the future. Presently though, Iran appears poised to become more of a traditional military dictatorship and less of a theocracy. How events in Iran will transform the Middle East is hard to say but there does appear to be a thaw in American/Syrian relations. The State Department has hoped to exploit potential rifts between Iran and Syria for years even as the Bush administration behaved like a bull in a China shop and the fallout from Iran's presidential election has given the West at least a modest diplomatic opening.

I’m gratified American troops are finally withdrawing from Iraq and that Vice President Biden has advised the Iraqis we won’t be expending more blood and treasure to police sectarian violence. Sadly, those resources will likely be redeployed in the Afghanistan/Pakistan theater. Unless vigorous diplomacy with NATO powers or the upcoming summit in Russia can facilitate greater logistical support, an overextended American military is more vulnerable than ever to the burdens of empire maintenance in the name of national defense.

I can’t begin to articulate my disgust over events in Albany with the state senate. Much of my activism last year was dedicated to enabling Democrats to finally take the majority. Painfully, their political incompetence as well as Governor David Paterson’s feckless leadership has effectively ended those reformist aspirations from 2006 when Eliot Spitzer was elected New York’s chief executive. With respect to who controls the state senate there is the 2010 census at stake and that means repercussions for the House of Representatives as well the power dynamic in Albany. For the people of this state it’s not just about reform or which party controls Albany. It’s being able to earn a living wage, afford healthcare, have access to affordable housing and good public schools. Unfortunately, New York's political leadership has shown that the Big Apple is a Banana Republic. Hopefully, the chaos between Democrats and Republicans will strengthen the leverage of New York’s Workers Family Party as they represent the interests of New York’s struggling wage earners. Now more than ever Democrats need the support of the WFP and they have much work to do to earn it. As for Eliot Spitzer, tempermentally flawed as he is, I would gladly take him back and would even be willing to pay an "escort tax" to make it happen!

Living On $2 A Day: An Interview With Economist Jonathan Morduch

2009-06-21T15:19:00.007-04:00

According to the World Bank, almost forty percent of humanity lives on a daily income of less than two dollars per day. Another 1.1 billion scrape by on less than one dollar per day.

How can anyone possibly survive or raise a family with such a meager income? In New York City, two dollars per day won’t even cover my daily Brooklyn/Manhattan round-trip subway commute. Yet billions of low skilled people put food on the table, educate their children, grapple with unexpected emergencies and even save money.

In Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live On $2 a Day, Darryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven, compiled yearlong “financial diaries,” of villagers and slum dwellers in Bangladesh, India and South Africa. The diaries track penny by penny, how specific households manage their money with sophistication and resourcefulness. Recently published by Princeton University Press, Portfolios of the Poor, presents revealing data in an accessible seven chapters and 184 pages of text. The text is supported with an additional eighty plus pages of appendices, data tables and notes illustrating “the story behind the portfolios.”

In a tour de force of primary research, the authors report that the world’s poorest do not live hand to mouth and desperately spend what they earn just to keep from drowning. Instead, they utilize financial tools, rely on “informal” networks through relatives and neighbors and navigate perils such as medical calamities and political strife. Their stories are both inspiring as well as heartbreaking.

Although the world’s poorest are far more adept at financial management then previously understood, they’re confronted with what the authors describe as the “triple whammy”:

Low income
Irregularity of income.
Unpredictability about when they will earn income.

Hence, the authors assertively advocate for microfinancing as a means of empowering the world’s poorest with more secure and convenient instruments to access and manage money. Microfinancing is financial services for low income clients in the world’s poorest countries who are self-employed or operating their own businesses.

The authors argue in their book that microfinancing should also be extended to address the needs of exceptionally low-income wage earners as well. It is their contention that poor people in the countries they researched demonstrate on a daily basis that they are responsible money managers and would also be reliable clients of microfinancing services.

One of the authors, Jonathan Morduch, is a New York University ("NYU") professor of economics as well as a managing director of the Financial Access Initiative - a consortium of researchers at NYU, Harvard, Yale, and Innovations for Poverty Action. Morduch, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about the book and our conversation was just under twenty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered was how his team earned the confidence of the people interviewed, the informal market tools utilized by the world’s poorest in Bangladesh, India and South Africa and why he’s a proponent of extending microfinancing to the world’s poorest wage earners.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.

That Freedom Thing

2009-06-14T21:38:00.005-04:00

Years. 1956. 1968. 1979. 1989. 1990. 1997. As events and protests unfold following the disputed Iranian presidential election I’m reminded of years and moments when the forces of totalitarianism and popular will stared each other down. Each moment contained its own unique historical tapestry and illustrated humanity’s common aspirations to live in dignity.

With each instance there is wonderment and hope that history will turn the page for the better. History teaches however that such hopes are typically elusive.

Hungary: October/November 1956 - America falsely suggests it would support an uprising against Soviet oppression and backs away. The Kremlin initially appeared ready to accept Hungary’s popular will and instead opted to crush it. And a generation of freedom is lost.

Czechoslovakia: January to August 1968 - In January, reformist Slovak Alexander Dubcek comes to power and unleashes the “Prague Spring.” Citizens are granted more freedom as the economy is partially decentralized and restrictions on speech and the media are loosened. In April, Dubcek refers to his political program as “socialism with a human face.” On August 21st, the Soviet Union and members of the Warsaw Pact invade Czechoslovakia and Dubcek’s reforms are terminated. It became known as the “Brezhnev Doctrine,” as Moscow claimed the right to intervene any time a socialist country appeared ready to lose its way and embrace capitalism.

China: April/May 1989 - Twenty years ago the death of a pro-market, pro-democracy, and anti-corruption official, Hu Yaobang, sparks an uprising. A million people gathered at Tiananmen Square to mourn Hu. The movement lasts seven weeks, from Hu's death in mid April until tanks cleared Tiananmen Square on June 4th. It’s a young people’s movement, as one unarmed man is shown in footage worldwide obstructing a tank with his defiance. Many are killed, wounded and “rehabilitated” following these events as Beijing cracks down.

The end result is an uneasy truce in which China’s economy is liberalized while the Communist Party maintains its hold onto power. Whenever corruption or popular discontentment is poised to rupture the truce, Beijing exploits the nationalist card with respect to Taiwan’s sovereignty or uses America and the West as a foil legitimizing their rule. Today, China finances America’s deficit with their expanding economy even as discontentment and the Internet threaten to undermine the regime’s authority.

Eastern Europe: 1989-1990 - The proudest feeling I ever had about my country took place in March 1990. While studying abroad in England I visited Berlin and Poland. “Velvet Revolutions” had swept Eastern Europe in 1989 and Poland was the first domino to fall that summer as our bipolar world disintegrated. Even so, I was initially more enthusiastic about visiting Berlin. By March 1990 Poland wasn’t really in the news anymore following more dramatic events in Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Romania. Nonetheless, the exhilarating feel of history was intoxicating.

It seemed everyone I met in Poland, from the host family I stayed with, to the courageous Solidarity activists, referred to America as their model and inspiration. Shipyard workers and university students my age peppered me with questions about our model of government laws, society and material wealth. I had to convince several Poles that the Miami Vice television program was not representative of America as a whole. How strange to watch Miami Vice on Polish television with my host family as a single male voice overdubbed all the characters!

One crusty fifty something activist told me that, “Your Constitution was stronger than Moscow’s tanks.” Lump in your throat stuff from someone who had confronted totalitarianism since I was in elementary school when the Gdansk shipyard workers rose up in 1981. Even so, the challenges ahead for Poland and Eastern Europe seemed nearly impossible to overcome.

The legacy of Soviet style industrialization was making the mucus come out of my nose black while I toured the country. There were more consumer goods available than before but insufficient resources to meet the demand. I left Poland feeling inspired by their courage but skeptical that the transition could be pulled off. I also worried that the forces of nationalism would reemerge in Eastern Europe following the collapse of communism.

The transition to market oriented democracies has been rough at times for Eastern Europe. Alas, the breakup of Yugoslavia resulted in genocide and bloodshed. Czechoslovakia is no longer a single country and the specter of the Russian Bear is worrisome once again. There was the tumultuous Ukrainian presidential election and Orange Revolution in 2004-05 in opposition to Russia’s imperious manipulations. Nonetheless, democracy appears to have largely taken hold but with the same challenges of transparency, corruption and economic fairness confronting all nations

South Africa: 1990 to 1994 - In 1990 South Africa's President, F.W. de Klerk initiated the systematic dismantling of the racist Apartheid regime. Nelson Mandela, formerly imprisoned by the Apartheid government prevailed in South Africa's first democratic election in 1994. With respect to facilitating reconciliation between the newly empowered black majority and the deposed white minority, Mandela's leadership is a model of statesmanship. Unfortunately, after fifteen years of corruption and incompetence, millions of black South Africans live in poverty as the AIDS pandemic plagues their country.

Iran: 1979, 1997 and 2009 - And that brings us back to Iran. Most readers here should be familiar with the history. A brief snapshot however. In 1953 an American and British orchestrated a coup that replaced Iran’s parliamentary democracy with a monarchy led by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. America’s CIA trained his secret police known as SAVAK to preserve the Shah’s power. Hence, for over twenty-five years the West had a staunch ally in the oil rich Persian Gulf during the Cold War. Popular discontent however facilitated the demise of the Shah’s regime and he is forced to leave the country in January 1979.

Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, formerly exiled by the Shah returns in February and ultimately becomes Iran’s Supreme Leader. The brutality of the Shah’s regime is replaced with an even more oppressive Islamic theocracy. Khomeni’s consolidation of power is especially brutal. In November 1979, Iranian students seize the American Embassy and take hostages resulting in thirty years of estrangement between the former allies. A catastrophic eight year war with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in the 1980s leaves Iran with a disproportionately youthful demographic.

President Mohammad Khatami's 1997 landslide victory generates hope among Iran's young for a new era. Many are hoping Khatami will be Iran’s Gorbachev resulting in a rapprochement with the West. Khatami and his supporters are unable to overcome the conservative forces arrayed against them. President George W. Bush further undercuts Iranian reformers with his reactionary policies following 9/11. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prevails in 2005 under the banner of economic populism and social conservatism. He becomes an object of ridicule within his own country and an international embarrassment as he denies the Holocaust and openly threatens Israel’s destruction.

Nobody with any horse sense believes Ahmadinejad legitimately defeated his reformist rival, Mir Husein Moussavi in a landslide. Today, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei gave his support to the outcome of the country's presidential election. Clashes are currently taking place however between the police and Moussavi’s supporters.

Obama’s diplomatic initiatives with Iran appear stalled until events shake out. Iran’s sham of a democracy has been exposed as illegitimate. We always knew that Iran’s elections were severely flawed as presidential candidates had to pass an ideological purity test to be permitted to compete. Initially, Moussavi appeared to be a clever tactic for dissenting impulses to have a means of acting out without threatening the regime’s hold on power.

Instead, a genie has been unleashed and the only way to put it back in its bottle is with brute force. Use of such force as China did in 1989 will only further alienate the population from the regime and isolate Iran even more from the world.

Obama is playing it cool at present and watching events unfold. In fairness to President Obama, America’s track record in intervening in Iranian affairs is not good. Our coup in 1953 was both immoral and strategically disastrous. Also, Obama’s foreign policy, for all the pretty rhetoric is reminiscent of George Herbert Walker Bush’s. It’s predicated on “stability” rather than encouraging grass roots movements against oppression.

And it’s hard to conduct business with a country when an uprising is taking place. So, it is understandable that the president is risk adverse. America erred in 1956 with Hungary and many died when we were not willing to intervene on their behalf. America at present is fighting two wars and doesn’t possess the assets to intervene in a meaningful way. Suggesting otherwise would be irresponsible and might even undermine opponents of the regime. If he acts rashly the end results could be disastrous. Yet, if Obama remains a passive actor, an opportunity could be missed.

Obama’s recent speech in Cairo is partially a catalyst to events on Iranian streets today. With an American president professing respect and conciliation towards the Islamic world, the rationale for Ahmadinejad as well as maintaining a bellicose posture against the West no longer seemed necessary. The recent election in Lebanon also suggested a response to Obama’s speech. Meanwhile, a viable constituency for ending Iran’s isolation certainly exits as illustrated by the 2009 campaign. Hence, Iran’s governing elite is obviously spooked by Obama’s speech, the Lebanese election and the increasing street activity of Moussavi’s supporters.

How will history turn? Is this a revolution in the making or will Iran’s mullahs successfully crack down as the Chinese communists did in 1989? China’s economy was large enough to survive the world’s condemnation but could Iran absorb the repercussions of a brutal crackdown? Or will Iran’s ruling elite come up with face saving pragmatic compromises to ensure their power for another generation? Sadly, a "Velvet Revolution" like we saw in Eastern Europe in 1989 with limited bloodshed seems unlikely.

Perhaps, Iran’s ruling establishment will manufacture a crisis with the United States to rally nationalist support on its behalf. Does Israel’s Netanyahu benefit from Ahmadinejad’s victory or will a popular uprising in Iran end Israel’s ability to distract from their oppression of the Palestinian people?

The possibilities, opportunities and dangers are endless. And the stakes couldn’t be higher. One thing is for sure: far better to have Barack Obama and Joe Biden in the White House instead of the irrational John McCain and insipid Sarah Palin. I don't always agree with Obama's centrist like approach but at least he has a cool head.

Billy Graham & the Rise of the Republican South: An Interview With Historian Steven P. Miller

2009-06-07T15:47:00.003-04:00

In the age of Barack Obama, both the Republican Party as well as the South appear marginalized and out of step with the rest of America. Yet it wasn’t so long ago that the South represented the foundation of America’s conservative hegemony. Starting with Dwight Eisenhower in 1952, the Republican Party prevailed in nine out of the next fourteen presidential elections with a reliable Southern base.

Specifically, the Republican Party exploited white Southern resentment against the cause of civil rights and integration. The "Southern strategy" as it was later called, enabled Republicans to end the Democratic Party's previous domination of the South following the Civil War. A key figure in that realignment was the renowned evangelist Billy Graham.

Historian, Steven P. Miller, first explored Billy Graham’s role in this realignment with his doctorate thesis entitled, “The Politics of Decency: Billy Graham, Evangelicalism, and the End of the Solid South, 1950-1980.” Miller later converted that thesis into his current book, Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South, recently published by the University of Pennsylvania Press. Miller’s book delineates how Graham allowed his iconic celebrity to be used by national politicians so they could make inroads into the South. His book also details how Graham capitalized on his leverage as a regional heavyweight to influence presidents and policy.

With President Dwight Eisenhower, Graham had an ideological soul mate as both valued “moderation” between segregationists and those who championed integration. Graham believed that racism could not be overcome through legislation and the heavy hand of federal power. Instead, he advocated changing the hearts and minds of people “one soul at a time” through his integrated “crusades” where he preached his love thy neighbor gospel.

Under the presidencies of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon, Graham straddled the fence between promoting racial tolerance and preserving local southern autonomy or “states rights.” In that regard, Graham was an intimate part of Richard Nixon's inner circle after he became president in 1968. Graham’s defenders argue that he helped the South transition from its shameful past while preserving stability. His critics claim that Graham was a cowardly apologist for white privilege who didn’t do nearly enough to advance the cause of civil rights. Personally, like many liberals, I'm partial to the latter argument.

Ross Douthat writes in his April 19th review of Miller's book in the New York Times that,

“Neither story is the whole truth, but both are true. And it’s a credit to Steven P. Miller that his ‘Billy Graham and the Rise of the Republican South,’ a study of the evangelist’s relationship to the cause of civil rights on the one hand and the cause of conservatism on the other, does justice to the tensions and complexities involved — for Graham, for the South and for the country. In Miller’s account, one of 20th-century America’s most important religious leaders emerges as a representative political actor as well, whose example is worth pondering less because he was courageous than because he often wasn’t.

The story of the civil rights era is usually told as a collision between heroes and villains: the marchers on one side and the K.K.K. on the other; the Martin Luther Kings and Lyndon Johnsons making the way straight for justice, and the George Wallaces and Bull Connors standing sneering in their way. But the movement’s successes and failures were ultimately determined by the choices of more unheroic men — men like Billy Graham.”

Miller, who earned a PH.D degree in history from Vanderbilt University and has taught at numerous institutions, including Washington University, Webster University and Goshen College, agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about his book and our conversation was just under thirty-six minutes.

Among the topics covered is the difference between hard core fundamentalism and evangelicalism, Graham’s role in facilitating Republican inroads into the previously reliable Democratic South, whether his middle ground on civil rights was courageous or cowardly, Graham's alliance with Eisenhower, his friendship with Lyndon Johnson, the intimate collaboration with Richard Nixon and the legacy he left behind.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

&file=http://media.libsyn.com/media/intrepidliberaljournal/060709_Interview_With_Steven_P_Miller.mp3&image=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJeagle2.jpg&logo=http://www.antemedius.com/files/images/ILJlogo.gif&link=http://www.antemedius.com/users/intrepid-liberal-journal&height=170&width=300" width="300" height="170">

This interview can also be at accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Obama & the Mideast

2009-06-03T07:38:00.002-04:00

President Obama is beginning his much-anticipated Mideast trip today in Saudi Arabia that includes a heavily promoted address to the Muslim world in Cairo, Egypt tomorrow. This trip coincides with President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, making news criticizing Israel's settlment policy in the occuppied territories. With respect to the criticism, Israel's settlement policy is both illegal and immoral.

Obama's willingness to criticize Israel for it is certainly a change in rhetoric from standard American practice in recent years. The real test however will come as the Netenyahu government continues to defy the world and build within existing settlements. Will there be any consequences? I doubt it.

At this point there is no organized counterweight to the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee ("APAC"). As a Jewish American who cares about Israel, I once again express my regret that an effective counterweight to APAC does not exist. Without one, Israel will continue down a dark and perilious path and eventually reap a catastrophic whirlwind. In the meantime, blood is being shed.

I suspect Obama's Israeli criticism is partly calculated to enhance his credibility prior to engaging the leadership of the Muslim world. Translation: "I'm being honest with Israel and not coddling them. So I'm going to be honest with you too and say, Israel has legitimate security concerns that need to be addressed." That won't be enough.

In fairness to Obama, I don't see how any president can resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. Netanyahu, even if he wanted too, can't deliver diplomatic breakthroughs without fracturing his fragile coalition or provoking civil war with Israeli settlers. The Palestinian leadership under Abbas is even less capable of coming through with what is known in the world of diplomacy as "deliverables." With Hamas shut out, the Palestinian Authority has no credibility with its own people as it struggles to survive.

Both Israeli and Palestinian societies are dysfunctional. After forty years of a brutal occupation, the Palestinians don't have the institutions or an established civil culture to govern itself as a peaceful neighbor. That won't change unless Palestinian society can have a transition period without the heavy yoke of occupation. The Palestinian young have known nothing but struggle, hardship and violence. They are jaded and easy prey to do the terrorist bidding of demagogues.

Meanwhile, Israeli society has been morally corrupted as an occupier and the extremist settler movement further ties their government’s hands. Even worse, there is no effective political left in Israel serving as an opposition. The onetime proud Labor Party is serving in Netanyahu's coalition and the opposition Kadima Party is not much better than Netanyahu's Likud government. Curiously, the Israeli press is far more critical of the occupation than the American press. Nonetheless, no viable center-left opposition party capable of challenging Israel’s posture towards the Palestinians exists.

It's heartbreaking but the cycle of violence appears unbreakable.

Dr. Tiller's Assasination Is An Act of Terrorism

2009-06-01T07:30:00.003-04:00

All I have to say about Dr. George Tiller's assassination yesterday is that it is an act of terrorism. This man put himself at risk on behalf of women and was murdered because of it. The ultimate objective is to intimidate other doctors from helping women at a time of crisis in their lives. Anyone who has ever known a woman who aborted a baby learned it is not a frivolous decision on their part. Late term abortions are especially traumatic for women and typically done to save their lives.

I've always respected people of conscious who genuinely believe abortion is wrong and have worked within the political system to oppose it. Regrettably, too many anti-abortion activists believe their moral imperative extends to murder. American conservatives have enabled the sort of terrorists that murdered Dr. Tiller and his family is living with the consequences.

Sotomayor, White Grievance Politics & the Supreme Court

2009-05-31T16:08:00.006-04:00

Two of America’s leading sexist bigots, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich, recently cited a 2001 speech delivered by federal Appeals Court Judge Sonia Sotomayor as proof of her racism. As a liberal partisan, my instinctive reaction is disgust at their cynical attempt to exploit white identity grievance politics against the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee. Conservatives have been singing the same tune since Richard Nixon’s “law and order” campaign in 1968 with enormous destructive impact upon American civic life.

Nonetheless, Sotomayor’s words and conservative critics reaction to her nomination, is instructive about our race/gender biases as well as the false ideal of objectivity in a Supreme Court justice. By now, many of us have read the following passage from Sotomayor’s 2001 speech to the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law:

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.”

First, let’s address the argument between Sotomayor and those who believe that competent judges should reach the same conclusions regardless of their backgrounds, while Sotomayor acknowledges the impact of life experience upon her decisions. It happens there is truth in both arguments.

For example, it might surprise many Americans to learn that the Supreme Court with judges as ideologically different as Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg could ever reach a unanimous decision. Yet, it’s not unprecedented for the Supreme Court to announce numerous unanimous decisions early in its term. Indeed, on January 27th of this year, the Supreme Court announced five unanimous decisions with respect to civil rights laws protecting workers against employer retaliation. The rights of workers and employers are often wedges between liberals and conservatives, yet Scalia and Ginsburg voted the same way on five such cases earlier this year.

However, Sotomayor is also correct. As legal scholar and former Supreme Court clerk Christopher Eisgruber, persuasively argues, the Constitution contains too many abstract and vague references such as the Equal Opportunity Clause, for nine individuals to interpret the law without any ideological predisposition. Typically, as Eisgruber pointed out to me in a podcast interview two weeks ago, precedent and text regardless of their judicial philosophies restrain lower court jurists. Even the famous case involving fire fighters in New Haven, Connecticut that have conservative critics frothing at the mouth against Sotomayor was a ruling largely based upon precedent and two of her colleagues voted the same way.

Yet as Eisgruber also noted in our interview, historically, liberals and conservative jurists alike are eventually compelled to be “activists” and intervene through judicial review whenever a clause in the Constitution is simply too vague to provide sufficient guidance. As someone who clerked for conservative U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham and liberal Supreme Court justice, John Paul Stevens, Eisgruber knows whereof he speaks.

Most of the time, an appeals court judge can be an “umpire” as Chief Justice John Roberts famously put it during his 2005 confirmation hearings. Much of the time, Supreme Court justices are impartial actors and personalities as different as Ginsburg and Scalia often rule the same way. Sotomayor’s background suggests that when the law and Constitution are clear, she will likely be representative of that tradition.

Nonetheless, history also suggests that the next Supreme Court justice will be confronted with cases during their tenure that transcend the text drafted by America’s founders two centuries ago or feel compelled to overturn the will of congress. For example, future Supreme Courts may preside over cases with respect to civil liberties and the technology of functional magnetic resonance imaging (brain mapping) in which neither the Constitution nor legal precedent are applicable. It also seems inevitable the Supreme Court will eventually preside over a case that transcends the will of state legislatures or congress with respect to gay marriage to ensure equal protection for all citizens.

And that leads to the Sotomayor phrase about "a wise Latina woman” that has some conservatives behaving as if their sphincter muscles are on fire. I largely agree with Sotomayor’s 2001 speech. Even so, I believe her words about “a wise Latina woman” were ill chosen. Nonetheless, this latest conservative “outrage” is a mere distraction taken out of context. Conservatives are longtime practitioners of America’s fear industrial complex and the Sotomayor nomination is merely the latest example.

When it’s one of their presidents they want justices with a reliable predisposition towards conservative activism. If a Democrat is in the White House conservatives emphasize restrained moderation. In fairness, liberal activists also emphasize moderation whenever confronted with nominees such as Roberts and Alito but gear up for a fight to advance our cause when we have a Democratic president. Such is the game of politics and elections do have consequences.

Race/gender absolutely influences our worldview and can’t help but have an impact on a Supreme Court justice. Denying that is disingenuous and we shouldn’t. Nor should we fear it. Rather, a diversity of perspectives on our nation's highest court represents America at its best. Presently, this is an uncomfortable reality for many conservatives who don’t want to relinquish the benefits of “white privilege” and feel insecure about a black Democratic president nominating a female Hispanic judge. Unless of course that justice is pliable to their worldview as Clarence Thomas has been.

It happens that I have a measure of empathy for their discomfort. My formative years were in Rockland County, New York and it was largely white bread cookie cutter suburbia when I was a kid. Although I live in Brooklyn, New York, today, I occasionally feel nostalgic about that provincial homogenous existence of my youth. I love the diversity of my adult neighborhood but even a liberal like myself is not above such sentiments.

Nonetheless, white male hegemony domination of the Supreme Court is an anachronism best discarded. Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court is a reflection of our society's maturation and represents progress. As for conservatives and their childish grievances, I say spare the rod and spoil the child.

Investigating Torture: An Interview With Former Federal Prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega

2009-05-18T21:34:00.003-04:00

Former federal prosecutor Elizabeth de la Vega has recently made news urging that we don’t rush into appointing a special prosecutor to investigate crimes of torture during George W. Bush’s presidency. In a provocative April 20th post entitled “Of Black Holes and Radio Silence,” Ms. de la Vega wrote:

“There is no doubt that sometime in 2002 - if not before - Bush administration officials and their lawyers began orchestrating a torture campaign, which they calculatedly attempted to justify through specious legal memos. They continued to abuse prisoners, and to conceal that mistreatment from Congress and the public, through at least 2008. In all of this conduct, they have committed grave crimes for which they must be held accountable. I believe this to be a national imperative of the highest order.”

However, she also argues that,

“First, the bottom line: From the perspective of anyone who wants Bush and Cheney and their top aides to be held accountable for their crimes, the designation of some sort of independent prosecutor right now would be the worst possible eventuality. It's a move that has so many downsides - and holds so few real benefits - that I would be more inclined to question President Obama's motives if he appointed a special prosecutor than if he did not. There is a reason why former prosecutor Arlen Specter - a Republican senator from Pennsylvania - has voiced support for a special prosecutor, while former prosecutors Patrick Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse - Democratic senators from Vermont and Rhode Island, respectively - would prefer a public inquiry.”

Please note that Ms. de la Vega’s post was written prior to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter becoming a Democrat.

Overall, Ms. de la Vega contends that appointing a special prosecutor now would undermine the cause of truth and accountability. It is her contention that transparent and public hearings would facilitate more popular support for prosecuting wrong doers than currently exists. As she wrote on April 20th:

“What we continue to need, in sum, are unwavering spotlights, even more civic education, and, most importantly, an irrefutable and cohesive factual narrative - comprised of direct and circumstantial evidence - that links the highest-level officials and advisers of the Bush administration, ineluctably, to specific instances and victims of torture. What we will surely have, however, if a special prosecutor is named, will be precisely the opposite: The initiation of a federal grand jury investigation right now would be roughly the equivalent of ceremoniously dumping the entire issue of torture into a black hole. There will be nothing to see and we will be listening intently to radio silence, trying to make sense of intermittent static in the form of the occasional unreliable leak. For years. There may never be any charges and we will almost certainly never have the unimpeachable historical narrative that we need.”

On May 10th, she posted a followed up piece entitled “Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really running Out?”and argued that the statutory clock in section 2340A, otherwise known as the “torture statute” didn’t start ticking until Bush’s presidency ended on January 20, 2009 – when President Obama reversed our policies. Her May 10th post was in response to those who are clamoring for the immediate appointment of a special prosecutor because they claim the statute of limitations for torture crimes that began in 2002 were scheduled to expire in 2010.

Ms. de la Vega’s position stems from her longtime experience as a federal prosecutor. She served as a Justice Department Attorney under Presidents Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. She is the winner of numerous Attorney General's and community awards, including the prestigious Director's Award for Superior Performance. For over twenty-years, Ms. de la Vega targeted violent gangsters and sophisticated white-collar criminals in Minneapolis where she served as an Assisted United States Attorney and San Jose, where she was Branch Chief and a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force.

Since retiring from government service in 2004, Ms. de la Vega has been among the most vocal in pushing for accountability on a broad range of crimes allegedly committed during the Bush administration. In 2006, her book, the United States vs. George W. Bush, et al was a New York Times best seller. A year ago, Ms. de la Vega wrote an incisive piece supporting Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich’s thirty-five articles of impeachment against President Bush.

She has also contributed to numerous print and online publications, including the Los Angeles Times, Christian Science Monitor, Nation magazine, Chicago Sun-Times, Mother Jones, Common Dreams, TomDispatch, Truthout and Alternet.

Ms. de la Vega agreed to a telephone podcast interview with me about her views with respect to investigating torture and support for public transparency. Special thanks to Vern Radul, known in the blogosphere as Edger where he manages Antemedius.com for persuading Ms. de la Vega for doing the interview. Our conversation was just under twenty-minutes as I posed numerous devil’s advocate questions. Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either “Robert Ellman” or the “Intrepid Liberal Journal.”

The Next Justice: An Interview With Legal Scholar Christopher L. Eisgruber

2009-05-17T20:53:00.004-04:00

President Obama will soon announce his nominee to replace retiring Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court. It’s a critical nomination with long-term ramifications for civil liberties, executive power, management-labor relations, the environment and consumer rights. Hence, it is vital the public know whether the judicial philosophy and ideology of any prospective nominee to the court is compatible with their sensibilities and values. Ideally, all nominees would be forthcoming about their philosophy as the senate either confirms or rejects them with full knowledge of the sort of justice they’re likely to be.

Regrettably, that hasn’t occurred since the 1987 Senate confirmation hearings for Robert Bork. At the time, Bork scared the hell out of me and I’m grateful his nomination was not approved. Even so, I always respected how Bork was upfront about his ideology and judicial philosophy. Bork didn’t hide what he was and the American public and the Senate had a clear picture of what sort of justice he would be.

Sadly, since the Bork nomination fight, our Supreme Court appointments process has become a Kabuki dance existing in an alternate reality. Nominees are conditioned to reveal as little as possible about their judicial philosophies or even avoid acknowledging they have one. A pitiful example is Chief Justice John Roberts who famously compared Supreme Court justices with baseball umpires during his 2005 Senate confirmation hearings:

“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”

Contrary to John Roberts’ testimony, a Supreme Court justice has a unique and expansive role in our society. The Constitution contains too many abstract references and clauses for any justice to merely adhere to the rules based on a strict interpretation of the text. An example is the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause. As the highly regarded legal scholar, Christopher L. Eisgruber, observes in his 2007 book, The Next Justice: Repairing the Supreme Court Appointments Process (Princeton University Press) the Equal Protection Clause reads,

“’No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’

How should judges interpret this clause? Presumably, they must ask what it means for the laws to protect people equally. Yet that question takes judges straight to the nerve center of American ideological controversy. Liberals and conservatives disagree passionately about what it means for the laws to protect groups equally and about when it is appropriate for the laws to treat one group better than another.”

Overall, Eisgruber argues that due to the Constitution’s many vague abstractions, a Supreme Court justice is disproportionately influenced by their individual values and ideology in determining when it’s appropriate for the court to intervene and even overrule our country’s prior laws. How could it be otherwise when the Constitution’s text is frequently subject to broad interpretation as with the Equal Opportunity Clause? Hence, it is imperative the senate determines if the judicial philosophy of a Supreme Court nominee is representative of the country.

Some legal scholars such as Yale law professor Stephen Carter have argued that nominees to the Supreme Court should simply stay home because their testimony has ceased to contribute anything substantive. There is definitely merit to Carter’s point of view. Nominees since Robert Bork typically speak only in vague platitudes about practicing “judicial restraint” and are ultimately voted up or down based upon their reassuring television appeal.

Eisgruber however argues in his book that the senate should ask more open-ended questions of prospective nominees about their judicial philosophies. Too often senators attempt to trap nominees with “gotcha” questions or ask about specific issues such as abortion that that can easily be deflected to “preserve their integrity” prior to joining the Supreme Court. Ultimately, little is learned and unless opposition interest groups get any traction or a scandal emerges, the nominee is likely to sail through without defending or explaining their ideology.

One example of the sort of question Eisgruber suggests asking is,

“The late Chief Justice William Rehinquist wrote that ‘manifold provisions of the Constitution with which judges must deal are by no means crystal clear in their import, and reasonable minds may differ as to which interpretation is proper.’ Could you tell us something about the values and purposes that will guide you when you interpret provisions like the Equal Protection Clause? How do those values and purposes distinguish your approach from those taken by other justices?”

Eisgruber contends this approach has a better chance of determining the sort of justice a nominee is likely to be. He also argues that it will facilitate more moderate nominees and discourage stealth extremists.

Eisgruber, who previously clerked for U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Patrick E. Higginbortham (a conservative) and Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (a liberal), agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about his book. Among the topics discussed were the insights he gained clerking for two ideologically different judges, the importance of justice’s philosophy about judicial review, President Obama’s desire for a justice with “empathy” and whether we might have a justice who did not serve in the appellate courts. I also asked him numerous questions from my liberal perspective, including whether ideological balance on the court would be better served by appointing assertive liberals instead of moderates.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes store by searching for either the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

Check This Out!

2009-05-10T22:30:00.001-04:00

Frank Rich referenced this YouTube video in his column today showing a 1981 television news report about a gentleman reading the San Francisco Examiner from his home computer. Considering how print journalism is rapidly becoming obsolete this video is bathed in irony.

Callous Mike

2009-05-10T15:15:00.006-04:00

Among the many kinds of emails I receive from readers is the assumption that I live in a blue liberal paradise in New York City. Typically, these emails will come from readers living in states like Texas or Alabama who feel alienated from neighbors who talk unabashedly about seceding or openly refer to Obama as “that nigger president.” Thankfully, I’m not exposed to that nonsense living in Brooklyn and working in Manhattan.

Nonetheless, New York City is not a liberal panacea and Mayor Mike Bloomberg's administration is no champion of the poor. On May 9th, the Associated Press reported that city officials are charging homeless families for living in shelters. Hat tip to my Facebook buddy Terri DiMatteo for posting about this. According to the AP:

“The policy applies only to shelter residents who have income from jobs.

They could be expected to pay up to half their earnings.

Some shelter residents say the new rule will ruin their chances of saving enough money to get an apartment.

One single mother living in a Manhattan shelter tells The New York Times [NYT] she got a letter saying she had to give up $336 of the $800 she makes each month as a cashier.

The city says it is only charging people who can afford to pay.

About 2,000 families are expected to be covered by the new rule.”

One obvious flaw with this punitive measure is that it’s a disincentive to remain employed. As it is a working mother may be reluctant to leave her kids alone in a shelter to earn a pay-check. Now the Bloomberg administration is penalizing her for it!

I know many liberals in New York City who support Bloomberg. Whenever I talk to them I’m struck by how clueless they are. Bloomberg’s urbane and he’s been a pioneer in the information economy professionals like them have thrived in and still do even after Wall Street’s meltdown last fall. Also, Bloomberg supports the liberal position with respect to guns, abortion and the environment and the concerns of people living in shelters is not on their radar screen.

Bloomberg is certainly an improvement over his predecessor, Rudy Giuliani. He’s been forward thinking with respect to the environment and transforming New York City to combat global warming. In many ways Bloomberg is an effective technocrat. But this isn’t the first time his administration has been callous towards the most vulnerable in our society. Sadly, he appears poised for a third term coronation this November without a vigorous challenge or critique of his record.

Bloomberg is already spending millions on advertising while candidates such as Comptroller William Thompson are restricted in order to remain compliant with the Campaign Finance Board and receive matching funds. And Bloomberg continues to coast without worrying about serving the needs of wage earners and tenants who can’t afford to live here.

Does anyone care that New York City’s mayor is allowed to be a commissar for plutocrats in a gilded age? Is there anyone who can mount an effective challenge and at least compel Bloomberg to be cognizant of city residents who don't thrive in his world? Will the fact that the working poor living in shelters are being penalized while Bloomberg caters to the rich during the worst economic climate since the Great Depression even be an issue this campaign?

Saturday Night Ramblings

2009-05-09T21:01:00.003-04:00

I’ve taken a needed break from blogging these past few days. Rather than post a topic oriented essay this evening I just have a few random thoughts rattling in my head:

President Obama used his bully pulpit today to promote credit card reform legislation currently making its way through congress. Obama’s YouTube fireside chat contained echoes of Vice President Biden’s Chief Economist Jared Bernstein. How I wish Bernstein had more influence than Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

I concur with New York Times columnist Bob Herbert’s response to the so-called good news of “only” losing half a million jobs in April. I very much fear the corporate media and body politic will become complacent as long as the stock market continues to rally. Obama is too politically savvy to declare “mission accomplished” but his administration is kidding itself if they believe we have turned the corner.

Obama’s rhetoric is spot on but his deeds remain Wall Street centric. I have no faith in these so-called stress tests for the banks. My hunch is that the Obama administration is hoping to produce another “bubble” by restoring faith in our financial institutions with fuzzy math. Perhaps Obama is rationalizing that he would use a future bubble responsibly and invest in programs with long term returns for the public such as education, energy, health care and infrastructure. There are two risks with this approach. Risk number one is that the markets expose the fuzzy math just as they revealed the banks balance sheets as phony last year. Should that occur, as Paul Krugman noted in his recent column, Obama’s credibility will be vaporized and so will his ambitious agenda. Risk number two is that the Geithner/Summers plutocratic juggernaut successfully create their phony bubble, we become complacent and have another epic crash.

As New Yorkers know by now, Governor David Paterson and Senate Democrats finally agreed to a deal that bails out the MTA without draconian cuts in service and massive far hikes. This was achieved without any Republican votes. In the short term this good for New Yorkers struggling to keep their heads above water in this economy. Long term however there still is no viable plan to reform the MTA’s corrupt cronyism and culture of looting that New Yorkers always end up subsidizing.

As for Governor Paterson, he is sadly not ready for prime time. Paterson is reactive and constantly shifting his positions. His hapless performance is taking its toll as polls now show that voters prefer Eliot Spitzer who resigned in disgrace last year. Whereas Paterson navigates Albany’s tough terrain like a baby seal, Spitzer often seemed as if his sphincter muscle was on fire. Paterson is bullied and Spitzer tried to be a bully. Neither demonstrated leadership ability as New York 's chief executive. Hence, not enough has been accomplished since the Democrats retook the governor’s mansion in November 2006. Paterson still has time to turn things around but like most New York Democrats I’m hoping for a primary challenge. I’ve never been a fan of Attorney General Andrew Cuomo but as of now would support him over Paterson.

America owes a debt of gratitude to Supreme Court Justice David Souter for not retiring under President George W. Bush. I vividly recall when Souter was nominated by the first President Bush to replace Justice William Brennan in 1990. It was my senior year in college and one of my friends compared him to Robert Bork. Instead Souter turned out to be judicious and sensible. Conservatives chafed that Souter betrayed their cause. In my opinion, Souter presided as a traditional conservative jurist who respected precedent and didn’t overreact to the passions of the moment. Simply put, Souter didn’t betray conservatism. Conservatism’s metamorphosis to radicalism betrayed people like Souter. They wanted Souter to be a radical right wing activist and he opted to respect the Constitution instead.

I first became aware of Speaker Nancy Pelosi over a decade ago because of her diligent support of human rights in China over corporate interests. I appreciated her stolid advocacy of human rights in China and have long admired her staunch unapologetic liberalism.

Today, the Washington Post reported that a top Pelosi aide attended a briefing in 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were used. In recent weeks there have been numerous leaks to the press about what Pelosi knew with respect to "enhanced interrogation" techniques or torture as decent people refer to it. The CIA has apparently targeted Pelosi for damaging leaks just as they previously went after the Bush Administration during the Valerie Plame controversy as well as the who knew what about WMDs in Iraq infighting. One has to wonder if this contributed to Pelosi’s early declaration in 2006 not to investigate the Bush administration, initiate impeachment hearings and her holding back of House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers. Obviously, the Bush administration had plenty of enablers in the Democratic Party for their crimes. If Pelosi was among them she should be held accountable along with other Democratic enablers and we liberal Democrats must insist upon it.

Happy Mother's Day to all tomorrow!

2009 Chapeau Blog Award Winners

2009-05-05T07:21:00.007-04:00

Chapeau announced their 2009 Blog Award winners today. As readers here know this blog nominated as one of two industry finalists for their news category. The winner in my category is an inspirational blog called Ashin Mettacara. Ashin Mettacara is devoted to promoting freedom against oppression in Asia. They deserve the recognition and thanks to the Chapeau competition I have become a regular reader of their site.

Chapeau's overall winner for 2009's Most Brilliant Blog was awarded to the Raymond. CC Tech Blog. Well done!

Thanks to all who encouraged and voted for me. I appreciate the support and was honored to be nominated as an industry finalist. My thanks to Chapeau for promoting the art of blogging with these awards.

State of the Elephant

2009-05-03T16:38:00.006-04:00

America’s center of political gravity is defined by the Republican Party’s intellectual and moral disintegration. Senator Arlen Specter’s recent defection is an example of the American people rejecting the Republican Party like a body discarding a toxic kidney.

Partisan Democrats are understandably enjoying the GOP’s self-destruction as President Obama and his congressional majority implements an ambitious agenda. As a liberal Democrat and devoted activist, I appreciate the sentiment. While in power Republicans not only demonstrated contempt for the rule of law but even waged war against the unique American ideal of a meritocracy. Hence, one of my early posts as a blogger was entitled “Brezhnev Republicans” in January 2006. Republicans have earned the contempt and derision of patriotic citizens for their insipid indecency.

Yet I am neither gleeful nor triumphal about the Republican Party’s self-destruction because America’s winner-take all political system favors two dominant parties. Independents and third party candidates may sometimes break through or influence the outcome of elections. We’ve seen examples of this with the Libertarian and Green parties in recent years. Nonetheless, a two party duopoly will likely maintain its stranglehold on America’s body politic.

As I do not regard the Democratic Party as a panacea my preference is for both parties to be healthy, mature, honorable and intelligent. I say that even as I am devoted to working (and agitating) within the Democratic Party to facilitate peace and economic and social justice. The ideals I espouse can’t be achieved without a credible and decent minded opposition party. Vigorous competition in the marketplace of ideas is an essential component of any healthy democracy.

There is an opening to be seized in the idea marketplace either by the Republican Party or another party able to fill the void as an organized opposition. That void is to provide a counterweight to the pervasive influence of Wall Street and the financial services sector. Just as there was more to this country than George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney there is also more to America than plutocrats such as Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers.

President Obama has spoken eloquently about the need to promote sectors of the economy other than banking and financial services. He reiterated that theme again in his recent interview with economist David Leonhardt:

“We don’t want every single college grad with mathematical aptitude to become a derivative trader. We want some of them to go into engineering, we want some of them going into computer design.”

Yet the policies designed by his chief economic advisers Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers are excessively Wall Street centric. Americans across the political spectrum are hungering for an economic vision that transcends hyper-sized banks and multinational corporations at the expense of local communities, entrepreneurial small business owners and hard working wage earners.

Big government is needed to facilitate universal health care, ensure compliance with new environmental regulations that reduce carbon emissions and help workers retool during this period of economic calamity. Government however should not be empowering big banks and multinational corporations. My visceral sense is a majority consensus has emerged that while we need an activist government we should not be subsidizing big corporations.

Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding, his administration continues to promote the Wall Street economy that contributes nothing tangible to our society. I support much of President Obama’s domestic agenda with respect to health care, the environment, education and infrastructure. But I would welcome a viable opposition party that provides a counterweight to the Geithner/Summers vision of reforming the Wall Street economy the way Gorbachev tried to reform communism.

The Republican Party has neither the intellectual firepower nor temperament to provide that counterweight. Indeed, it was the Republican conservative ideology of deregulation at the behest of Wall Street that created the mess we’re in today. Hopefully, a new political class of technocratic populists can emerge that replaces the Republican Party and raises the bar of governing performance for Democrats.

Two centuries ago, farsighted leaders such as Abraham Lincoln abandoned the Whig Party when it imploded over the issue of slavery. The Whigs had a proud tradition that included leaders such as Speaker Henry Clay. But when it was no longer able to meet the challenges of its era, Lincoln’s Republican Party replaced it.

Similarly, the Republican Party had its day and boasted high caliber leaders such as President Dwight Eisenhower. It was also Republican Senate leader Ervin Dickerson that enabled President Lyndon Johnson to pass civil rights in the 1960s. Although I strongly disagreed with his zealous promotion of supply side economics, I admired Republican Jack Kemp who sincerely worked to make his party and America more inclusive. Kemp, who just died of cancer at 73, had his heart in the right place. Tragically, he was one of the few Republicans who did.

As of now, the big elephant is deranged and not capable of providing the credible opposition our democracy needs and deserves. It would not shock me if Democrats screwed up sufficiently to eventually merit being out of power. America would be better served if an opposition party of decent and intelligent people existed as an alternative. Presently, we don’t have one.

History however abhors a vacuum. If a coherent leadership class doesn’t emerge in the Republican Party soon, that vacuum will be filled by something else. Who knows, perhaps the Whigs will make a comeback.

Our Shallow & Vapid Corporate Media

2009-04-29T21:44:00.003-04:00

As usual, President Obama was poised and coherent during his third prime time press conference (click here for a transcript) this evening. After eight years of George W. Bush the way Obama presents himself still makes me proud. For damn sure I would not have been reassured if Bush were on that podium asking questions about the Swine Flu pandemic.

But so what? The real story to me this evening was our pathetic corporate media.

Why didn't any reporter ask if President Obama is receiving too much council from Wall Street centric economic advisers? Jeff Zelny of the New York Times actually asked what "surprised," "enchanted," "troubled" and "humbled" President Obama during his first 100 days! Yet his newspaper recently published a profile of Treasury Timothy Geithner's close relationships with the very people he was supposed to be overseeing while leading New York's Federal Reserve Bank. The New York Times also recently reported about bonuses in the banking industry returning to 2007 levels. Alas, Zelny opted to waist his prime time moment with vapid nonsense instead of asking questions the very newspaper he works for recently provoked!

There was some worthy give and take as Obama spoke eloquently of Winston Churchill who rejected torture while Great Britain was bombed by Nazi Germany in World War Two. So why didn't any reporter engage President Obama about investigating Bush administration officials who designed the criminal "enhanced interrogation techniques" policies? How come there were no questions challenging President Obama why he won't appoint a 9/11 type commission to investigate this horrific chapter in our history?

There were interesting questions and answers with respect to immigration reform and why Obama supported the Bush administration's policies regarding state secrets in court cases. I thought the press let President Obama off the hook too easily with respect to our increasing involvement in a Pakistan civil war. The President delivered reassuring platitudes regarding Pakistan's nuclear arsenal and dodged further inquiry with the cliche about not answering "hypothetical questions."

Overall, I didn't learn much this evening because the corporate media seldom asks questions that illicit revealing answers. I admire President Obama. I'm glad he's president instead of John McCain. But I don't give a damn whether anything in the White House "enchants" him. Neither do the millions of people absorbing the brunt of our economic calamity or our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hence, tonight's press conference is a reminder of why we need the blogosphere.

As The Specter Turns

2009-04-28T21:46:00.004-04:00

When an office colleague told me this afternoon that Republican Senator Arlen Specter defected to the Democratic Party, I had a flashback. In the fall of 1987, I was a freshman at Sarah Lawrence College. One of my professors assigned us a paper regarding the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. A few days of research (research without the Internet!) were sufficient to turn me off to Bork’s strict constructionist perspective as well as his advocacy for excessive executive power.

One afternoon, I watched the televised Senate confirmation hearings inside our campus TV room near Charlie’s Place or “The Pub” as we called it with one of my classmates. I was especially interested to assess the performance of Senators Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy. Biden, the Chairmen of the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time had just abandoned his presidential campaign following allegations of speech plagiarism. How would Biden conduct himself after this disappointment? Meanwhile, Kennedy was an especially assertive critic of Bork’s record and making headlines.

Yet it was Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter that captured my attention. I had never heard of Specter before. Bork and Specter engaged in a riveting intellectual repartee about the “original intent” of the Constitution, the right to privacy as well as executive power. Bork was a terrifying and brilliant advocate for the warped view of federalism that metastasized in the Reagan years and influenced future Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Watching those hearings it seemed to me that Republican Arlen Specter was the Judiciary Committee’s most persuasive critic of Bork’s reactionary dogma. Later that evening I called my Dad, who to this day remains the wisest voice about politics I know. We discussed the hearings and I complained that Specter belonged in the Democratic Party. My Dad sagely responded that it’s good for the country if Republicans have “moderate” voices such as Specter and he noted it enhanced the opposition’s credibility against reactionary figures such as Bork. Well, that seemed reasonable enough to me at the time.

Four years later I was bitterly disappointed when Specter supported Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court and contributed to the Republican lies about his former colleague, Anita Hill. Hill had accused Thomas of sexual harassment. At the time, Senator Ted Kennedy’s nephew was a defendant in a rape trial. As a result, Kennedy wasn’t comfortable aggressively challenging Thomas’s refutations of Hill’s testimony. Many liberals at the time were hoping that Specter would once again rise to the occasion and take the fight to Thomas as he did with Bork. Instead, Specter turned his fire on Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas’s nomination was approved.

To the detriment of consumers and wage earners, Arlen Specter was an enabler for Clarence Thomas to become a guaranteed supporter of reactionary activism on the Supreme Court. Following the 1987 Bork hearings, Specter became a favorite target of Republican conservatives and he was desperate to appease them with the Clarence Thomas hearings. Hence, Clarence Thomas is just as much a part of Specter’s legacy as Robert Bork.

Since the 1991 Thomas hearings, a pitiful template for Specter’s performance as Senator was established: for the next eighteen years he simultaneously appeased and disappointed the radical right that demanded purity. Meanwhile, moderates and liberals were continuously let down when Specter talked the talk with respect to civil liberties under President George W. Bush but failed to walk the walk.

Twenty-two years ago I would have been thrilled if Arlen Specter had joined the Democratic Party. Today, my perspective is rather cold. Yes, I acknowledge that once Al Franken of Minnesota is seated the Democratic caucus will have a filibuster proof majority on paper. And to the extent activist progressive oriented legislation is enacted as result of Specter’s defection, i.e., health care reform, that’s all to the good. Also, I’m enjoying the Republican Party’s humiliation after years of watching southern Democrats defect. Perhaps, Specter’s defection will be the start of a trend.

Specter himself however is likely to be a Joe Lieberman like presence in the caucus. He’s pro-corporatist/pro Wall Street and opposes the Employee Free Choice Act. Specter is also hawkish, pro-war and very much representative of the establishment's flawed national security mindset that created the mess we’re currently in. Had Specter remained in the Republican Party, we had an outstanding opportunity to elect a genuine liberal from Pennsylvania in 2010.

Only radical crazies remain in Pennsylvania’s Republican Party. Pennsylvania’s Democratic Party now boasts 200,000 additional voters and Democrats could easily defeat Specter’s conservative antagonist, Pat Toomey who is Exhibit A of the far right’s psychosis. Had Specter somehow prevailed in his Republican primary fight, a liberal Democrat would have likely defeated him in the general election.

Hopefully, a credible and organized liberal will challenge Specter in the 2010 primary. A credible challenger for example might force Specter to flip flop on the Employment Free Choice Act and support worker rights. Specter has already demonstrated malleability to ensure his political survival whenever he appeased the far right.

Like a lot of politicians, expediency matters more to Arlen Specter than principle. Now that Specter’s a member of the Democratic caucus, we liberals need to aggressively persuade him that’s in his best interests to support our issues. A credible primary challenge is the best way to do just that.

That 100 Days Leadership Thing

2009-04-26T16:01:00.004-04:00

A charismatic president assumes power in a time of unprecedented turmoil after his hapless predecessor becomes a hated symbol of inertia. Financial institutions previously trusted for their forbearance are exposed as reckless stewards while the global economy implodes and regular folks who did nothing wrong are ruined. As job losses mount, unscrupulous demagogues at home and abroad exploit the chaos for nefarious objectives.

Discredited conservatives accuse the new president of socialism while anarchists under the guise of populism are determined to expropriate and redistribute private capital’s wealth no matter what the consequences. Yet the nation rallies to the new president even as progress is slow, uneven and plagued with setbacks. Critics on the left, including his wife, believe the new president is overly cautious while conservatives view him as akin to the anti-Christ.

The public discourse is volatile as the new president confounds his critics and towers over the body politic. Sound familiar? Generation-Y liberals may assume I’m referring to President Barack Obama’s first 100 days that we’ll be reading about next week. I am of course referring to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who first established the 100 days benchmark in 1933. FDR’s first 100 days were the foundation of twenty-years of Democratic Roosevelt/Truman administrations that forever changed American society and its place in the world.

FDR himself was brilliant and flawed as he navigated the country through perilous waters domestically and internationally. His leadership enabled America and its allies to prevail in World War Two and establish an enduring middle class. Yet there was also a dark side to the FDR years as the “imperial presidency” was launched and Japanese civilians were “relocated.” The imperial presidency later metastasized during the cold war following the 1947 National Security Act under Harry Truman.

Ultimately, the FDR years, like any presidency was a product of its time. Skirmishes between labor and business were violent. The gap between rich and poor was grotesque. Much of rural America didn’t have electricity and whites routinely murdered their black neighbors. Anti-Semitic demagogues such as Father Charles Coughlin polluted the airwaves. Industrial leaders like Henry Ford as well as national hero, aviator Charles Limburg, openly expressed their admiration for Adolph Hitler.

Capitalism as well as the concept of democracy itself seemed to be retreating as Hitler in Germany, Josef Stalin in Soviet Russia and Italy’s Benito Mussolini maneuvered for global domination. The Japanese Empire brutally worked to establish their “Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere and carved up the Chinese mainland in the 1930s. Americans hoped to avoid foreign wars and FDR promised to keep us out as he plotted behind the scenes to save civilization.

In any era, leadership is not for the meek or faint of heart. FDR projected jaunty confidence and empathy for the downtrodden as he defined America’s center of political gravity on his terms. His leadership style was one of calculated confrontation and FDR skillfully utilized his political capital to take on conservative agents of the status quo at home while inspiring an international alliance against implacable enemies abroad. Seventy-five years after his first inauguration many historians regard him as America’s greatest president.

President Obama’s current challenges and leadership style is understandably compared to FDR – especially has we approach his 100 day benchmark. His support remains notably impressive in spite of the plutocratic dynamic duo of Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner or his waffling with respect to prosecuting crimes committed by the Bush Administration.

Every week we set new records for unemployment claims and the Wall Street bailouts continue. Yet the public continues to believe in his leadership. I do too even as I fret over Obama’s handling of the banking crisis and worry his presidency will be consumed by efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan.

My interpretation of President Obama’s political standing is that his support is partly attributed to a conservative minority that is bereft of ideas and maturity. There is the faux populist outrage of “tea parties” to the sniveling temper tantrums of conservatives when Obama shakes hands with Hugo Chavez. Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh look like fools as they critique Obama’s handling of the Somali Pirates hostage crisis while the administration initiates a successful rescue operation. Republicans in Texas and Georgia speak openly of secession while a more sophisticated majority wants to come together and solve problems.

The public face of conservatism is angry, xenophobic, homophobic, shrill and insipid and no longer taken seriously. It's not just that conservative ideology is thorougly discredited as it was in 1933. Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, John Boehner and Newt Gingrich are almost cartoonish in their political opposition. Hence, the real debate with respect to public policy about issues ranging from the potential fall of Pakistan, engaging Iran, addressing global warming, strengthening public education, rebuilding infrastucture, renewable energy and health care is between the center and the left. The center of political gravity is being redefined by Barack Obama because Republicans don't belong at the grownups table.

On the left, people like me critique the administration so he will seize the moment and push the envelope further. We want accountability for the Bush Administration’s crimes, a swift reversal of the Wall Street centric economy that has placed millions of Americans on the abyss of destitution and a public option for health care. The end result of impatient liberal/left critics and America’s puerile conservatives is that President Obama owns the political center just as FDR did.

Whether Obama takes full advantage of his unique stature will take far longer than 100 days to know. This is only the end of the beginning.

Calamity Jane

2009-04-20T22:18:00.004-04:00

Remember how Speaker Nancy Pelosi did not want California Democrat Jane Harman to become head of the House Intelligence Committee after the 2006 mid-term elections? Well, Jeff Stein of Congressional Quarterly reported yesterday that Harman,

“was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would ‘waddle into’ the AIPAC case ‘if you think it'll make a difference,’ according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

In exchange for Harman's help, the sources said, the suspected Israeli agent pledged to help lobby Nancy Pelosi , D-Calif., then-House minority leader, to appoint Harman chair of the Intelligence Committee after the 2006 elections, which the Democrats were heavily favored to win.

Seemingly wary of what she had just agreed to, according to an official who read the NSA transcript, Harman hung up after saying, 'This conversation doesn't exist.’"

These allegations with respect to AIPAC’s lobbying efforts and Harman are not new. Stein’s reporting of the NSA wiretap however adds an entirely new wrinkle. Even more damning is Stein’s report that Attorney General Alberto Gonzales dropped the Justice Department’s investigation of Harman so the Democrat would help defend the Bush Administration’s warrantless wiretapping program just prior to the New York Times breaking the story.

Harman’s office has denied the allegations. Obviously, the Justice Department must thoroughly investigate the Harman/AIPAC connection as well as Alberto Gonzales’s conduct in this matter. Once again we learn why Alberto Gonzales is arguably the worst public servant in the history of America’s executive branch.

With respect to Israeli espionage, I’ve never been judgmental of any country, including ours, for spying on either friends or foes. That is the real world. In the game of nations, governments frequently conduct intelligence operations to influence the politics of “friends” and rival states in accordance with their interests. Israel is a practitioner of this as is the United States, China, Russia, Iran, India and so forth.

However, this matter once again illustrates the need for a strong political counterweight to AIPAC’s disproportionate influence on American politics and policies. Liberal Jewish Americans like myself who are critical of Israel’s immoral and dangerous policies must be at the forefront of that political counterweight to provide the necessary cover. Delusional zealots in America and Israel have engaged in immoral and self-destructive policies. As someone who cares about Israel’s future as well as their national character, I hope this espionage case serves as a wakeup call.

In the meantime, Attorney General Eric Holder needs to demonstrate respect for the law and convene a grand jury forthwith for both Jane Harman and Alberto Gonzales. Given AIPAC’s disproportionate influence in Washington it seems likely neither Harman nor Gonzales are alone with their disregard for the law when it comes to Israel. I don’t blame Israel or AIPAC for exploiting their influence. Any nation would do the same with that sort of leverage.

I blame our political system that allows it to flourish. Prosecuting offenders such as Harman will hopefully have a “chilling effect” on politicians from betraying American interests to AIPAC in the future. As for Gonzales, he should have been frog marched years ago.

Truth & No Consquences

2009-04-19T15:08:00.007-04:00

Unless hermetically sealed in a dungeon, I assume readers are aware of the “torture memos” authored by Bush administration lawyers in 2002-2003 and released to the public this past week by the Justice Department. Their release followed intense debate between Attorney General Eric Holder who advocated transparency and CIA Director Leon Pannetta who argued on behalf of secrecy.

Each time I started to read one I stopped out of disgust. I finally read them all yesterday after initially avoiding it. Ultimately, as citizens we all have a duty to familiarize ourselves with this dark chapter in our history yet it took me a couple days to overcome my reluctance and read these documents. Having done so I urge everyone to do the same and not simply rely upon the punditocracy and blogosphere for interpretation.

President Obama courageously and in my view rightly, authorized their release because we must not shield shameful truths under the false pre-text of national security. The criticism of former Bush officials notwithstanding, releasing these memos is an important step in the Obama administration’s efforts to rehabilitate America’s image.

The cost to our national security in releasing memos with respect to banned torture techniques is outweighed by the higher consideration of restoring America’s respectability with the civilized world. We can’t ignore our immoral transgressions because the world hasn’t and the national security argument is a false construct. Indeed, these now banned policies were ineffective at best and harmed our national security by further radicalizing the world against us.

Many on the left are understandably outraged at the administration’s decision not to prosecute intelligence operatives who implemented these policies and have invoked the “Nuremberg defense” in venting their criticism. I sympathize with their argument even as I feel conflicted about it. Yes, I acknowledge feeling conflicted about what to do with CIA employees who were promised legal cover. Not all “truths” are absolute.

It doesn’t seem right to prosecute these people after the Justice Department promised they would not be prosecuted in the first place. To do sends a message that we expect these people to do our dirty work with the understanding they will be abandoned once the going gets tough.

I’d like to think I would have the moral courage to say no after receiving orders to engage in torture and resist the criminal rationalizations of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and Justice Department lawyer John Yoo. It’s easy for any of us on the outside to say these people should be prosecuted. We might feel differently if we had to walk in their shoes.

It also doesn’t seem right to simply ignore what they did. The CIA required cover from the Justice Department because they knew the Bush administration torture guidelines were illegal as well as immoral. Suppose this administration or succeeding presidents order their operatives to conduct immoral and illegal activities with respect to future detainees?

Is it not better to establish a precedent that punishes “following orders” that are illegal and reward those who stand up for the rule of law? Even if these employees are not criminally prosecuted they should pay a professional price and be fired. The culture needs to be changed and won’t be without some kind of accountability.

Without hesitation I firmly believe those who helped design these policies such as White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo merit prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. Prosecution should also include Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush and anyone else identified either through a truth and reconciliation commission or congressional investigation as designing and ordering criminal policies in our country’s name. It is to our everlasting shame that foreign courts are willing to prosecute Americans for war crimes, while we allow our own to go on as if nothing ever happened.

President Obama apparently believes absolving the prior administration for war crimes is analogous to President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon: the only way to allow the country to move ahead. At least President Ford though “pardoned” Richard Nixon. The act of pardoning Nixon, although condemned at the time, at least acknowledged the man committed acts subject to prosecution. And Nixon had already paid a price.

There has been no reckoning for the figures that shamed our country or any sort of official acknowledgment that they engaged in criminal behavior. Congressional Democrats should have insisted upon accountability while the Bush administration was in power. It is to the everlasting shame of the Democratic Party that they did not impeach Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales after he later became Attorney General, when they had the chance.

I believe a mature democracy should be able to conduct the people's business and simultaneously pursue the truth no matter where or how high up it leads. If President Obama however truly believes prosecuting former members of the Bush administration, including Bush and Cheney to be a distraction the nation can’t afford, then he should pardon them. Let's assume for the sake of argument that President Obama is correct. That criminal prosecution of Bush, Cheney and their minions would paralyze the body politic at a time when action is needed on multiple fronts.

At least the act of pardoning sends a message that the United States of America acknowledges their wrongdoing for posterity. It would also forever mark those pardoned long after bloggers like me are dead. Pardoning them would further stain those who enabled their heinous policies. Those enablers not only include the Republican Party but Democratic leaders such as Nancy Pelosi and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Committee who were briefed on these policies. Even if the entire Bush cabal never serves a second in prison, pardoning them is far preferable than simply “not prosecuting” the most feculent administration in American history.

Otherwise, releasing these memos amounts to truth without any consequences. And that's not acceptable.

Democracy Should Begin At Home

2009-04-15T17:13:00.002-04:00

On Sunday I interviewed Yale Law School professor and electoral legal expert, Heather Gerken, about her idea for a Democracy Index. Gerken argues in her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It, that we need a metric to facilitate accountability and reform in our voting system. For more details about her book and our podcast interview, click here.

I thought about Professor Gerken today with respect to the recent Norm Coleman/Al Franken election controversy in Minnesota as well as the unresolved Scott Murphy/Joe Tedisco congressional race in upstate New York. Eight plus years after Bush vs. Gore, our system remains pathetically dysfunctional. Today, Gerken communicated to me in an email that,

"These races reveal precisely the problem I'm trying to address. We only see problems in the election system when it is close, as with the Coleman/Franken race. Minnesota is widely thought to be a well-run election system, and I have every reason to think that it is. The problems the Coleman/Franken debacle revealed were the problems that exist everywhere. One reason to have a Democracy Index is that it would let us see those problems even in the absence of a close race. That would help us do a better job of diagnosing what ails the system. It would allow us to prevent problems before they throw the results of a close race into question. And it would widen the window from reform, which typically closes the moment the election is resolved and the media turn off their cameras and microphones."

Gerken's efforts on behalf of a "Democracy Index" to assess the electoral performance of our states and localities illustrates a bitter irony: America continues to shed blood and treasure in the name of democracy and freedom abroad while its voting system decays at home. Indeed, progress in Afghanistan and Iraq, will partly be measured by our monitoring of upcoming elections in both countries while too many Americans are prevented from registering or disenfranchised at the voting booth.

It’s especially remarkable to consider that we likely have more data collected with respect to the electoral process Iraq and Afghanistan than our own country. As Gerken revealed in our Sunday interview, we don’t even know how many Americans attempted to vote in the 2008 presidential election.

How can we ever hope to help other countries develop their own democracies when ours is in such disrepair? Gerken’s “Democracy Index” suggests a way forward to assess where the problems areas are and effect repairs. Yesterday, President Obama spoke eloquently about a “New Foundation” for our economy and society. A cornerstone of that foundation should include finally addressing the soft underbelly of America’s wobbly election infrastructure.

Wednesday Musings

2009-04-15T13:04:00.003-04:00

I’m home sick today with a brutal cough/cold combination sapping my energy. Even so, I must get my blogging fix and muse about current events:

Tax day has me thinking of my grandfather. As I’ve shared previously on this blog, my grandfather came to the United States just prior to Nazi Germany’s occupation of Poland along with his six brothers. Years ago my Mom told me the story of when she teased my grandfather as he did the annoying grownup chore of completing his tax returns. My grandfather rebuked her and said, “I’m proud to pay my taxes in this country.” He genuinely believed it was his patriotic duty to contribute and he was not wealthy. I wonder what he would think of these “tea bagging” conservatives, especially the wealthy ones, who are so contemptuous of their civic obligations even as they claim superior patriotism to everyone else.

I too am opposed to the continued bailouts of fraudulent financial institutions. Indeed, outrage over the bailouts is something both liberals and conservatives share these days. Nonetheless, it is the conservatives who are promoting tax rebellions that engineered the very “starve the beast” deregulating crusade that facilitated our current economic calamity. With the private sector on life support after Wall Street’s transgressions it makes little sense to starve the only entity capable of stimulating the economy on a wide scale: our federal government.

Understandably, we Americans are fixated on our new young president. Yet, there is something rather egocentric about our obsession and I am as guilty of that as anyone. It is especially easy for Americans to forget that not everything in this world is about our politics, policies, priorities or perceptions. For example, Thailand has been rocked by anti-government protests in recent days. Today, Thailand’s government announced it has revoked the passport of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra after accusing him of encouraging the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship. Shinawatra was recently convicted of corruption and has been abroad since his 2006 deposition. Shinawatra has recently asked the United Front to practice nonviolence. Hopefully, a just resolution can be achieved in that troubled country with no more loss of life.

Regrettably, the daring rescue of Captain Richard Phillips by Navy Seals has not served as a deterrent as Somali pirates attacked another American cargo ship today. This particular ship was delivering needed food aid and far more than American ships are being targeted in this vast territory of maritime commerce. The Obama administration’s posture with respect to piracy has been firm yet measured. That will frustrate some but it's far better than exploiting the situation to irrationally escalate the “war on terror.”

The Obama administration is putting considerable diplomatic and military muscle to reinforce Pakistan against militant Islam. The conventional wisdom within America’s foreign policy establishment is that Pakistan is too important to fail. Yet it's the Pakistani government that appeased the Taliban and al Quaeda by allowing Sharia law to be imposed in the Swat Valley. American and NATO can only do so much to shape events there. If Pakistan’s government does fall to Islamic radicals what then? Would India occupy Pakistan with Washington’s blessing? How would China or India respond to that development?

Much of the diplomatic chatter with respect to an American-Iranian rapprochement is really about addressing common strategic interests along the Afghanistan-Pakistani corridor. The Bush administration failed to exploit Iranian misgivings about the Taliban and al Quaeda. President Obama is hoping to make up for lost time but time is running out. Ultimately, success is not contingent upon a military surge but the current diplomatic activity taking place. When factoring in the nuclear arsenals of Pakistan and India as well as the Chinese, Iranian and Russian interests at work, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict seems almost trivial.

The Democracy Index: An Interview With Law Professor Heather Gerken

2009-04-12T15:11:00.005-04:00

On January 1, 2007, Yale Law School professor Heather Gerken published a widely read article in the LegalTimes entitled, “How Does Your State Rank on The Democracy Index.” Gerken argued that just as the Environmental Performance Index (“EPI”) shamed countries such as Belgium to upgrade their environmental practices, a “Democracy Index” would embarrass state and localities into reforming their electoral administration through competition.

Since Bush vs. Gore in 2000, the debate about electoral reform has been dominated by anecdotes and overheated abstractions. Liberals like me have long suspected that states such as Ohio and Florida were deliberately disenfranchising minority voters sympathetic to Democratic candidates. Conservatives complained that voter fraud and urban political machines were allowing ineligible voters to cast ballots at the expense of Republican candidates. With her article, Gerken contended that a Democracy Index would replace a debate dominated by shouting with data driven arguments instead:

“This index should take what Ohio State University law professor Daniel Tokaji calls a ‘moneyball approach.’ The word ‘moneyball,’ of course, refers to Michael Lewis’ book of the same name about the success of the Oakland A’s after management substituted hard numbers and empirical research for the gut-level judgments of baseball scouts in making hiring decisions.

Similarly, the Democracy Index could change the terms of the debate by giving voters something new: moneyball politics. It would offer cold, hard numbers and comparative data in place of atmospherics and anecdotes. It would provide bottom-line results in place of subjective judgments. It would let reformers talk like corporate executives, not starry-eyed idealists. And, most important, it would enable the voters to hold election officials accountable for their missteps.

In the end, a ranking system would work for a simple reason: No one wants to be at the bottom of the list.”

Gerken further described her Democracy Index proposal and identified the major obstacles to good election practices with her new book, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How To Fix It (Princeton University Press). Her book is an accessible 181 pages and postulates that we need more facts about our election practices and that a ranking metric is our best hope to facilitate accountability and reform. Gerken also contends that our broken electoral system has less to do with intended malice than “deferred maintenance,” a term typically applied to failed infrastructure such as broken bridges.

Shortly after Gerken’s LegalTimes article was published, Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, put her concept into proposed legislation and within a year, Congress set aside $10 million to fund model data collection programs in five states and the Pew Center. Other foundations also sponsored conferences and initial research. On March 1, 2007, Obama referred to these initiatives on the Senate floor as,

“an important first step toward improving the health of our democracy. We are all familiar with the problems that have recently plagued our elections: Long lines, lost ballots, voters improperly turned away from the polls. These are basic failures of process. Until we fix them, we run the risk in every election that we will once again experience the kind of chaos and uncertainty that paralyzed the nation in 2000. We can do better. We must do better. But to do better, we need more than anecdotal information. We need better, nonpartisan, objective information.”

Hence, Gerken's efforts illustrated at least the potential for action from the body politic to facilitate electoral reform but obviously, more needs to be done.

With respect to electoral law, Gerken is among the most authoritative voices in the country. In 2006, Gerken joined the Yale Law School faculty where she teaches election and constitutional law. Previously, Gerken clerked for Supreme Court Justice David Souter and was an assistant professor at Harvard Law School, where she was granted tenure and won the Sachs-Freund teaching award. She has also written for the New Republic, Roll Call, and Legal Affairs and has been a frequent media commentator.

Gerken was among several commentators who appeared on Charlie Rose’s program the very evening the Supreme Court rendered its fateful decision in Bush vs. Gore. During the 2008 presidential election, Gerken served on Barack Obama’s election protection team.

Gerken agreed to a podcast interview with me over the telephone about her book and proposal for a Democracy index. Our conversation was just over seventeen minutes and can be accessed via the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed at no cost via the Itunes Store by searching for either “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman.”

The Slow Pivot

2009-04-11T14:26:00.003-04:00

I am preparing for a podcast interview tomorrow afternoon and family obligations during Passover prevented me from posting more frequently this week.

In the meantime though, President Obama's weekly address is an opportunity to note that at least rhetorically, he's attempting to condition the American people for today’s new world order. Yet at the same time, Obama is also trying to be reassuring with religious references to Passover and Easter as well as reiterating that American "leadership" is the key to meeting today's global challenges.

It's a tough balancing act as most Americans grew up in a world in which we were respected and feared and enjoyed enduring prosperity. After World War Two, the global financial system that emerged known as Bretton Woods, was exceptionally favorable to the United States. Furthermore, America was the number one super power in a bipolar world. For damn sure nobody used the term "existential threat" with respect to nation states such as Iran.

Today however, both China and India are emerging superpowers, Russia has become a petro state on steroids, globalization is depressing American wages, Pakistan and its nuclear arsenal is on the verge of becoming a failed state, addressing global warming requires difficult consensus and stateless terrorist actors are consumers in the nuclear proliferation market. Even worse, greed and insipid American leadership ruined the same financial system we created and we find ourselves at the mercy of other countries forbearance as a result.

Hence, while America remains powerful, we must pivot from an empire culture to a more cooperative posture. Yet simultaneously, America must remain vigilant in a dangerous world in which conflict and brutality remain humanity's default state in too many places. So, President Obama preaches cooperation and diplomacy while requesting congress appropriate $83 billion for war.

People like me are pushing Obama to pivot from empire to cooperation more aggressively. Personally, while I acknowledge the world is certainly dangerous, I believe Obama's foreign policy is still too unilateral. Politically however, I suspect Obama is straddling the same fence most Americans are sitting on: many feel isolated after George W. Bush, ashamed at the immorality of our foreign policy transgressions, but also don’t want to relinquish our status as a superpower and leader.

Today’s weekly address illustrates the challenge confronting Obama as he gently nudges Americans to leave the perks of an empire behind while retaining his political viability. I wish him well in that endeavor but believe he will eventually have to cook up a new omelet by breaking a few eggs. A slow pivot may not be fast enough.

A Statesman ... I Hope

2009-04-07T07:46:00.005-04:00

One of my favorite movies is “A Very British Coup” which adapted Chris Mullin’s 1982 novel for television. The story takes place during the Cold War, as left wing working class politician Harry Perkins becomes Prime Minister. Perkins does well for a while but the entrenched forces of the status quo conspire against him. One scene to me that summed up the entire movie is when Perkins asks one of his conservative antagonists why he’s so feared. And the rather dry response Perkins received was and I am quoting from memory here, “You’re showing an alarming trend of becoming a statesman.” Hence, Mr. Perkins had to be taken down.

President Obama’s support remains high and his performance on the international stage is cementing his image as a statesman. I was enormously proud of my President yesterday when he spoke before the Turkish parliament and said,

“America’s relationship with the Muslim community, the Muslim World, cannot and will not just be based upon opposition to terrorism. We seek broader engagement based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.”

After eight years of George W. Bush’s insipid indecency combined with the sophomoric Republican opposition, Obama’s stature is on steroids. I disagree strongly with his endorsement of the Larry Summers/Timothy Geithner approach to the banking crisis and also believe his foreign policy is overly hawkish. Yet I remain an enthusiastic supporter of Obama’s otherwise liberal initiatives as outlined in his budget proposal that the Blue Dog status quo forces are carving up. Obama is also the first President in my lifetime that I genuinely like from either party. The country and the world need Obama’s presidency to be successful.

Alas, I can’t help but worry. First and foremost is that pesky thing called reality If America has learned anything from the George W. Bush era is that we ignore reality at our peril. Eventually, it catches up and closes in. Obama’s fraudulent handling of the banking crisis (see my “Placebo Economics” post) is a ticking time bomb. I hope the plutocratic dynamic duo of Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner knows what they’re doing. I suspect however, that their criminal complicity with the A.I.G. bailouts and fetish like devotion to hyper-sized financial institutions will doom Obama’s otherwise good intentions.

My other concern is that predatory conservatives and Blue Dog Democrats like Evan Bayh regard Obama’s support the same way British Tories perceived Harry Perkins popularity. They never believed Perkins to be legitimate and determined he should not be allowed to become a statesman. Perkins lost his day of reckoning. Obama’s day of reckoning with those forces opposed to his good intentions is fast approaching. I hope to hell he wins.

American Entropy

2009-04-05T22:04:00.005-04:00

Americans are taught that we’re guaranteed the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Since World War Two, most Americans benefited from an enduring ethos that the only limitations on success were our abilities. As long as one was willing to work hard the basic essentials of life would never be in doubt and for those with unique ambition, foresight and special gifts, anything was possible. And for those unable to provide for themselves, America was a compassionate country that didn’t turn its back on our most vulnerable.

Yes I know too many Americans were victims of racism, predatory capitalism and a whole range of injustices. I also realize that wages have been on the decline since the 1970s as the middle class was increasingly squeezed. At various times numerous cities, such as my home city here in New York, crime was rampant. All that is true enough. Nonetheless, most post-war Americans enjoyed an inner confidence stemming from a feeling of basic security. There was always a paycheck, shelter, affordable healthcare whenever you needed it and America had the power to project its will and prerogatives upon the globe.

My grandfather to me epitomized the American dream. At the age of 16 he managed to escape Poland just before Hitler invaded with his six brothers. Family legend has it that my great grandfather, a Polish judge, realized long before his neighbors the threat Nazi Germany meant for European Jewry and did what he had to do to get his sons to America. My great grandmother protested all her children leaving but my great grandfather’s wisdom was proven correct in September 1939.

My grandfather proceeded to earn a modest living in the garment industry. He never became an entrepreneur, couldn’t hit a curveball and lived his entire life as a hard working wage earner. Yet that was enough to raise two twin daughters, own a home and even a tiny summer cottage with my grandmother. Those things were possible for people like my grandfather who fit snugly in America’s post World War Two middle class.

Alas, life is now spinning out of control for Americans accustomed to the power of shaping their own destiny. You may have terrific drive, ambition and ability but still be unable to provide for your family. Essentially, our destiny as human beings was ceded to reckless traders, credit default swaps, HMO accountants that have more autonomy than doctors and war mongering imbeciles with delusions of empire. Ironically, much of this was done during a forty-year conservative era that promised more prosperity and freedom but instead resulted in a crumbling empire.

Twenty years ago when the Soviet Union began its descent it produced a young vigorous leader named Michael Gorbachev who presided over the decline of a nuclear empire with tolerance and sense. Alas, Gorbachev was unable to reform Soviet communism and unwilling to completely reject its deficiencies.

Similarly, America has now produced a leader in President Barack Obama that seems uniquely qualified for the moment. On the world stage he presents himself as a figure able to adroitly function in this multi-polar world that doesn’t bend to America’s will. Sadly, Obama seems determined to reform Wall Street capitalism just as Gorbachev tried to fix Soviet communism even as both were and are irredeemable.

After Gorbachev, Russia’s lean years became even leaner. If Obama and his plutocrat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner maintain their current course, that same fate appears to await America as well. Obama is a decent man and most Americans support him yet the country as a whole can feel the unraveling taking place in its guts.

You learn much about yourself, your friends, your neighbors and family in this environment. Most people are inclined to pull together, sacrifice for the greater good, and extend a helping hand to those in need. Many on the abyss of despair and destitution manage to avoid losing themselves and dig deep for reservoirs of strength, ingenuity to survive and preserve their integrity. We’ve all read about or personally know inspirational people making the best of horrific circumstances and even helping to uplift others.

Yet an unraveling in American society is taking place as the cascade of ruin accelerates. This to me is somewhat illustrated by the three consecutive days of shooting incidents. The motivations for each incident were different and not specifically the result of current events. Even so, when people feel control over their own destinies slipping from their grasp, some will respond with irrational violence.

That doesn’t excuse the crimes. Plenty of citizens have not and will not give in or lose themselves to homicidal behavior regardless of the adversities confronting them whether it’s losing a job to cheap immigrant labor or their wife to another man. Tragically though, these incidents will likely increase in the months and years ahead as they reflect withdrawal symptoms of Americans coming down from the high of our empire drug.

We are living in an era of entropy now. Eventually, American society will adjust and establish a new economic-social paradigm for our times and the sooner the better. In the meantime though, there will be more incidents of desperate people trying to reclaim control of their fate by purchasing a gun and killing their designated scapegoats. Suicides will likely increase too. Such incidents will reinforce the sense of disorder in our daily lives as we cope with the future.

Private enterprise, government and iconic institutions, can no longer be relied upon to facilitate the stability and prosperity we Americans have come to regard as our birthright. It is therefore imperative during these times that we strengthen our ties to family, community and friends. Hyper-individualism is no longer sustainable and a new cultural ethos of the sum of the parts being greater than the whole is the best antidote to this disorienting entropy.

Placebo Economics

2009-04-04T17:42:00.007-04:00

How many of you read the financial investor’s blog Seeking Alpha? Well, their March 30th post entitled “Exclusive: Big Banks' Recent Profitability Due to AIG Scam?,” is a must read that ought to embarrass the hell out Senate banking chairman Chris Dodd and his House counterpart, Barney Frank.

Here is how Seeking Alpha summarized what they learned from an anonymous inside trader they call "Lou" in laymen terms:

“AIG, knowing it would need to ask for much more capital from the Treasury imminently, decided to throw in the towel, and gifted major bank counter-parties with trades which were egregiously profitable to the banks, and even more egregiously money losing to the U.S. taxpayers, who had to dump more and more cash into AIG, without having the U.S. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner disclose the real extent of this - for lack of a better word - fraudulent scam.

In simple terms, think of it as an auto dealer which knows that U.S. taxpayers will provide an infinite amount of money to fund its ongoing sales of horrendous vehicles (think Pontiac Azteks): the company decides to sell all the cars currently in contract, to lessors at far below the amortized market value, thereby generating huge profits for these lessors, as these turn around and sell the cars at a major profit, funded exclusively by U.S. taxpayers (readers should feel free to provide more gripping allegories).

What this all means is that the statements by major banks, i.e. JP Morgan Chase (JPM), Citi (C), and BofA (BAC), regarding abnormal profitability in January and February were true, however these profits were a) one-time in nature due to wholesale unwinds of AIG portfolios, b) entirely at the expense of AIG, and thus taxpayers, c) executed with Tim Geithner's (and thus the administration's) full knowledge and intent, d) were basically a transfer of money from taxpayers to banks (in yet another form) using AIG as an intermediary.”

Is any of this true? If so, the implications are frightening and suggest economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman is correct in warning that banks are insolvent and the administration’s plan to stabilize financial institutions nothing but smoke and mirrors. For damn sure I find this report far more believable than the recent stock market bump reflecting the profit statements of these fraudulent institutions.

Congress has a duty to provide vigorous oversight on the public’s behalf. Specifically, Senator Chris Dodd and Representative Barney Frank need to utilize their subpoena power as well as demand that Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner come clean with what he knew and when he knew it. If their investigation proves that Geithner knowingly endorsed the scheme then at minimum he needs to be replaced immediately. If President Obama refuses to fire him than Eric Holder’s Justice Department should read Geithner his rights.

Click here to contact Senator Dodd’s office and here for Representative Barney Frank’s and demand that they do their jobs. Lax oversight of the executive branch was supposed to end in 2006.

Placebo economics will not rescue either America or the world from this depression. Accounting gimmicks will not sugarcoat the dislocation, pain and yes poverty people worldwide are experiencing because of the reckless conduct of financial institutions allowed to run amok. It is incumbent upon our leaders that today’s pain results in a better socio-economic paradigm tomorrow. Enabling banks to inflate their quarterly statements for a good day on the stock exchange is precisely how we got into this mess in the first place.

Yet again I insist that hyper-sized financial institutions be nationalized or as William Black suggests, put into a receivership as the law mandated following the 1980s Savings & Loans crisis. That should be followed by comprehensive anti-trust legislation that permanently ends the chokehold these large institutions have on our economy. And we as citizens need to think globally by banking locally.

I support the administration’s bold initiatives with respect to their budget and am more than willing to help them as an activist take on Blue Dog Democrats such as Senator Evan Bayh, who double cross their constituents for campaign contributions under the false guise of “fiscal responsibility.” Also, I believe, Obama has the makings of a magnificent international statesman.

But the administration’s approach to the banking crisis is inadequate at best and perhaps criminal at worst. Unless Obama takes charge and gets realistic about the banking crisis, none of the good intentions outlined in his budget proposal will come to fruition.

Secretary Geithner's approach is a metastasizing cancer on the administration. And certainly not change I can believe in.

Obama Abroad

2009-04-04T10:37:00.004-04:00

My own view of President Obama's diplomatic performance this week is that he excelled as a statesman and represented America with a humble and honorable face. That is no small thing following President Bush who effectively alienated human civilization. Obama continues to dwarf political adversaries at home while slowly restoring America's reputation abroad. Most Europeans I believe prefer a cooperative relationship with America absent the rancor of recent years. President Obama's presence on the global scene is making it less fashionable for Europeans and hopefully other nations to scapegoat America for all that plagues the world. Realistically, Obama did as well as possible.

Unfortunately, that is not good enough. Although not entirely Obama's fault, as well as possible but not good enough is the reality of the moment. Hopefully, that will not prove to be the epitaph of his presidency.

The Europeans with their established social safety net are less inclined to add more stimulus spending. Both the administration and Europeans agree robust regulation is necessary but neither side of the Atlantic is ready to diminish the power of hyper-sized financial institutions and empower local banks instead. Unless both sides of the Atlantic eventually agree to completely restructure the global financial system, this week's "progress" with respect to the International Monetary Fund and agreeing in principle to increase banking regulation will be insufficient.

Also, there is that bleeding sore called Afghanistan and the increasing possibility Pakistan may become a failed nuclear state unable to control its borders or prevent any collusion among their military and intelligence services with terrorists. Click here to review a gruesome video of the Taliban recently beating a teenage girl in public in Pakistan's Swat Valley. As President Obama himself noted, his merely succeeding George W. Bush has not made this sort of barbarism disappear.

Neither the Obama administration nor the Europeans are joined at the hip with a common strategy to address the al Quaida/Taliban threat in Afghanistan or Pakistan. All the diplomatic symbolism aside, Obama owns the Afghanistan quagmire and is treating Pakistan like a corporation that is too big to fail.

One can understand the Europeans reluctance to add more of their own blood and treasure to Afghanistan. Trying to disable and destroy al Quaida and the Taliban has been a treadmill resulting in massive civilian casualties without progress. It's curious that the American political left isn't as mobolized against the Afghanistan conflict as it is with Iraq.

Personally, I believe our surge in Afghanistan is strategically misguided. Even so I hope it succeeds for young women like the one shown in the video. But unless the administration's diplomatic initiatives with Iran bear fruit and the Europeans are persuaded to do more, this week's pomp and circumstance will merely be another chapter in America's senseless global war on terror.

Dick Cheney's Fifth Column

2009-04-01T07:54:00.003-04:00

Towards the end of his recent interview with NPR, veteran journalist Seymour Hersch accused former Vice President Cheney of leaving loyalists behind in the national security bureaucracy to "sabotage" the Obama administration. Hersch is a determined reporter who has cultivated informed sources for decades. One suspects these moles are reporting back to Cheney so he can protect himself from legal jeopardy for his crimes. I would also not put it past Cheney and his minions to attempt to produce an intelligence debacle or terrorist attack just to embarrass the Obama administration and later say "at least we kept the people safe after 9/11." If Hersch's allegations are proven correct then Cheney and his loyalists within the government should be prosecuted as traitors. As it is, Cheney should have been prosecuted for war crimes years ago.

Tuesday Morning Ponderings

2009-03-31T07:46:00.004-04:00

Understandably, many on the left have questioned why GM’s Rich Wagoner was tossed underneath the bus while financial sector executives are permitted to carry on. Yet I wonder if the Obama administration has instead achieved the equivalent of Godfather like leverage with recipients of TARP money: they know he’s making them an offer that can’t be refused. I hope so because up until now the financial sector has been like bank robbers threatening to drop more bags of nitroglycerin on the economy.

I remain convinced that among the reforms needed is comprehensive anti-trust legislation to break up mega-sized financial institutions and empower local community banks. Is it too much to hope that congressional conservatives and liberals opposed to the TARP money will eventually collaborate on such reforms? There is a crying need for it and the country would likely support it.

Today’s G-20 summit (which is really about thirty nations) is perhaps the most important international gathering since FDR, Churchill and Stalin met at Yalta in February 1945. Six decades ago the post-war world was being shaped with America as the preeminent power in an emerging cold war competition. Today’s geopolitics is multi-polar and President Obama must navigate in an arena in which America’s leverage and credibility are severely diminished. Nonetheless, the global economy as well as challenges such as global warming and terrorism can’t be effectively addressed without American cooperation. My hunch is that President Obama will excel in this arena requiring high caliber statesmanship.

Is today’s special election in New York State’s congressional 20th district a bellwether? Typically, voters in the New York 20th are Republicans. Nonetheless, Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand prevailed in 2006 and her appointment as Hillary Clinton’s replacement has resulted in today’s spirited contest between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican State Assembly leader Jim Tedisco. The Obama administration has enlarged the importance of the race by putting its political muscle behind Murphy. If Murphy loses Republicans will claim the country is turning against the administration’s ambitious agenda. If Murphy prevails, Democrats will hopefully be emboldened to push ahead on progressive initiatives such as health care. Turn out in special elections are always mysterious so this race is hard to predict.

New York State Governor David Paterson and Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith are so hapless, that Sheldon Silver has emerged as Albany’s dominant power center. Silver, the longtime Assembly leader and adversary of transparent open government has easily rolled both Paterson and the novice Smith in budget negotiations. Appropriately, today’s New York Times has an article entitled, “Albany’s Big 3 Is Cut to One.” As I and many reform minded New Yorkers feared, the window of opportunity to reform Albany’s government ended with Spitzer’s resignation last year. What a shame.

Max Baucus Is A Corporatist Class Warrior

2009-03-28T22:11:00.007-04:00

A personal friend and avid reader of this blog recently complained that,

“You’re too tough on Democrats and Barack Obama. Since the election you’ve fired more rhetorical bullets at Democrats than Republicans.”

This was in response to my recent critiques of the Obama administration's handling of the banking crisis as well as my March 8th post, entitled “Evan Bayh Is A Corporatist Class Warrior.” To my friend and others like him I say this: just because I worked hard to elect Democrats as well as our current president doesn’t make me an unquestioning Borg drone.

Our conservative counterparts cheered while George W. Bush and his party brought America to its knees with their insipid indecency. Now it’s the Democrats in power and they must also be held accountable. The purpose of my activism as well as the participation of the “netroots” contained three objectives:

1) End predatory conservatism’s reign of indecency.

2) Enable the Democrats to obtain power in exchange for influence.

3) Leverage our influence within the party to pursue policies that facilitate broad prosperity, peace and social justice.

Put simply it’s a business relationship. Democrats are using people like me and we’re using the party. That said, I fully acknowledge the mess President Obama and Democrats have inherited and appreciate how four decades of predatory conservatism can’t be undone in two months.

I’m patient as long we’re going in the right direction and a strong critique from the left is necessary to keep the party and administration honest. I prefer to think of it as “constructive engagement.” Recently, in a podcast interview with me longtime journalist and author, William Greider referred to it as a “righteous struggle.” Overall, I believe the creative tension has gone reasonably well on some issues and less so on others. Now that Democrats control two of the three branches of government, vigilance is even more imperative.

Entrenched moneyed interests realize the onetime Republican gravy train is irrelevant and instead hope to persuade “Blue Dog” Democrats like Evan Bayh with dollars and even lucrative jobs for their families. Another Democrat beholden to corporate interests is Montana Senator Max Baucus, the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. Regrettably, Baucus has been an aggressive apostle of Washington’s rewarding wealth over work culture since his election in 1978. Sadly, as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Baucus has jurisdiction over any health care legislation that congress passes.

Yesterday, Howard Dean said that unless Americans have the choice of enrolling in a new public health care plan, the system won't be made more efficient. Most Americans would prefer to have a public option for health care. Yet Senator Baucus had the following reaction:

“Let’s see what we come up with. I think we can accomplish the objective [Dean] wants without [a public plan]. We can, we’re going to have to work on it. But we may have to have it, [Dean] may be right. Just don’t know yet.”

Translation, Baucus is willing to offer rhetorical platitudes suggesting he supports expanding health care but is really working to preserve the domain of the medical industrial complex at the expense of regular folks. According to OpenSecrets.org, these are the top five industries contributing to Baucus campaigns between 2003-2008:

Securities & Investment $832,918

Lawyers/Law Firms $668,004

Insurance $590,185

Health Professionals $537,141

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $524,813

There you have it. Baucus is beholden to Wall Street financiers at the expense of wage earners and small business entrepreneurs and the lapdog of a health care industry that prioritizes profit over wellness.

His voting record certainly reflects the donations he’s received. For example, Baucus was one of eighteen Democrats to support the 2005 predatory bankruptcy legislation passed by congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush. Baucus also supported the Bush administration's catastrophic tax cuts in 2001 that helped give us the deficits so called moderate Democrats like him claim to worry about today.

Indeed, it seems moderate Democrats like Baucus always promote fiscal responsibility until it gets in the way of redistributing wealth from wage earners living paycheck to paycheck to the super rich. How the hell has this dude managed to maintain a populist image in Montana?

Some may be tempted to rationalize that Baucus is the price for having a Democratic Senator from Montana. Recent evidence however suggests that is ridiculous. In 2006, Jon Tester defeated entrenched conservative Republican incumbent Conrad Burns with a populist campaign for the senate. And Brian Schweitzer has emerged as an effective, popular and progressive governor. Indeed, as a New Yorker I wish we had Schweitzer as our governor instead of the hapless David Paterson.

Democrats such as Max Baucus are the reason I've donated to Accountability Now. Accountability Now was founded by bloggers Glenn Greenwald and Jane Hamsher to provide a needed counterweight to pressure Democrats like Max Baucus. What I wrote about Indiana Senator Evan Bayh on March 8th is doubly true for Max Baucus:

“Nothing concentrates a politician’s mind like the prospect of a primary challenge. Accountability Now is a vehicle to obtain leverage and pressure Democrats such as Evan Bayh that opposing progressive change will put their careers in jeopardy. Delivering power to the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 was merely Phase One. Phase Two is transforming the Democratic Party as the people’s party rather than simply existing as the lesser corporatist evil in a two party duopoly.”

When Max Baucus guides his finance committee with respect to the health care debate and President Obama’s budget, it is imperative he hear from us. Baucus must be convinced that failure to act on behalf of the people’s interests will result in his political extinction. That is the only language entrenched power respects.

Even if you’re not a Montana resident, Baucus obviously accepts many contributions outside his state and as Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has disproportionate influence over the economic security of all Americans. It therefore seems reasonable that Americans across the country make it known to Baucus that we’ll be monitoring his actions closely and help end his career just as we helped elect Jon Tester in 2006. I did a lot of phone banking on Tester's behalf in 2006 and would be more than happy to volunteer on behalf of a liberal primary opponent to Max Baucus.

In the meantime, Baucus needs to feel the earth tremble beneath his feet. Click here for the telephone numbers of Baucus’s seven offices and here to email him.

Even with President Barack Obama in the White House, obtaining change we can believe in remains up to us. That means using our leverage to either place more liberal minded senators on that body's powerful finance committee or persuading status quo champions such as Max Baucus not to stand in our way.

Saturday Morning Ponderings

2009-03-28T10:04:00.004-04:00

This entire week I have endured the mother of all colds. Yet even in my Sudafed haze, I must comment on this week’s important developments:

This week Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner finally rolled out his public/private partnership plan with respect to “toxic assets.” His so-called plan has me thinking about the dangers of treating symptoms instead of the cause. A fever is the body’s way of sending us a message that we need to kill off an infection. Similarly, these “toxic assets” are sending the international community an unmistakable message; hyper-sized financial institutions are a parasitic infection eroding quality of life for wage earners across the globe.

Removing toxic assets is not treating the cause. And while more regulation is entirely justified and something we liberals have been insisting upon, that too will not treat the cause. Instead, citizens need to mobilize on behalf of bold anti-trust legislation that breaks up financial institutions such as CitiCorp and empower independent community banks. Do not be seduced by the gyrations of the stock market that some liberal bloggers chirped about this week. Unless the cause itself is treated our economic destiny will remain perilous. I fully support President Obama's ambitious budget and have nothing but contempt for the insipid Republican opposition as well as corporatist enablers such Indiana Senator Evan Bayh who stand in the way. Yet even the good intentions and overdue initiatives proposed in Obama's budget will not benefit our country as it should unless we boldly reshape our entire financial system.

President Barack Obama took complete ownership of the war in Afghanistan yesterday with his announcement of 17,000 more combat troops as well as an additional 4,000 non-combat advisers. One difference between Obama and his predecessor is the linkage between the fight against al Quaeda in neighboring Pakistan as well as their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Another difference is how the Obama administration intends to combine military power with a surge in regional diplomacy and “experts” to help fight corruption and facilitate a civil society. Supposedly, the focus is entirely defeating al Quaeda and not nation building, but how the hell can we fight corruption in an ancient society we know precious little about?

Meanwhile, the administration promises to both lean on and support the Pakistani government in their struggle against terrorists. Frankly, aid to the Pakistani government at this point appears every bit as wasteful as giving billions to A.I.G. The civilian government uses terrorism as an excuse to oppress its population as elements of Pakistan’s intelligence service and military aid the Taliban in Afghanistan. How do we know that any aid we provide Pakistan isn’t being utilized to plan another attack against us or help the wrong people obtain access to their nuclear arsenal?

All this is further compounded by an ultra-nationalist government in India that would make American neo-cons blush with their belligerence. The sub-continent is the world’s most dangerous powder keg and America’s presence has intensified regional violence. Even so, I sympathize with President Obama’s conundrum. Twenty years ago, our careless withdrawal after the cold war’s end facilitated the blowback that resulted in 9/11 and gave al Quaeda its safe haven. Our careless withdrawal of course followed our ill conceived intervention on behalf of Aghanistan's Mullah's in the first place when we armed Bin Laden in his struggle against the Soviet Union. If we screw it up this time the consequences will be far more catastrophic.

I’ve long believed that the best strategic approach is cooperative containment with the international community as opposed to grandiose delusions about “dismantling” and “disabling” al Quaeda. This is an organic movement. You can take out one important leader after the other including Bin Laden himself and it will simply regenerate. We need instead to address the causes of terrorism and work diligently at draining the swamp that fosters it. Anything less is a waste of blood and treasure. Not to mention all the innocent people being killed in Afghanistan by our presence. Also, we should be on the side of democracy in Pakistan instead of nurturing more resentment among Pakistan's decent civillian majority.

Longtime readers of this blog know how vigorously opposed I am to our prison industrial complex. I have therefore been keeping an eye on Virginia Senator James Webb who since his election in 2006, has spoken coherently about the need to reform our prison system. With a sympathetic President finally in the White House, Senator Webb has opted to take the initiative and joined Republican Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter in that effort. Both senators proposed legislation to create a blue-ribbon panel that would conduct an 18-month review and suggest recommendations of reform.

Specifically, Webb hopes to reform a system that incarcerates 2.4 million people and represents 25 percent of the world’s prison population even as America comprises only 5 percent of the entire planet. Mostly we have incarcerated people for petty drug offenses who need treatment instead of prison. This is an act of real political courage because any suggestion of reform usually results in accusations of being soft on crime.

Coincidentally, while Senators Webb and Specter plot prison reform in America, New York State’s dysfunctional leadership is finally addressing the arcane “Rockefeller Drug Laws” that have empowered my home state’s prison industrial complex for three decades. My favorite legislator, New York State Senator Liz Krueger, announced in a press release this week that,

“I am very proud to be a part of history today and finally see the Rockefeller Drug Laws reformed. The reforms announced today will restore judicial sentencing discretion and substantially expand alternatives to incarceration for non-violent drug offenders.

It has been a long hard fight to reform these archaic drug laws and today is the culmination of decades of hard work and advocacy from countless people, all of whom deserve praise for helping to achieve these needed reforms."

Reforming our prisons and drug laws will do more to curb violence in Mexico than any increase in numbers of our border patrol. Legalization and treatment will address the causes of drug abuse far more effectively than mindlessly incarcerating people and creating blowback in neighboring Mexico.

The one theme that emerges from the above bullet points is America's need to think about the cause instead of always reacting to the symptoms of what ails us.

MTA At DefCon One

2009-03-25T07:32:00.006-04:00

The body politic and blogosphere is focused on President Obama's 2nd prime time press conference, Tim Geithner's "plan" to resolve the banking crisis and the ongoing budget debate in Washington. Presently, my immediate concern with respect to the economy is local. This morning, the MTA board is planning to vote and ratify a budget with burdensome hikes and draconian service cuts for commuters to address a $1.2 billion deficit. That figure represents only what is known as it may well be even higher.

Former MTA Chairman, Richard Ravitch had earned broad based support with a plan to address the crisis fairly and spread the pain. Our "leadership" in Albany however has opted to punt. Senate Majority leader Malcolm Smith was especially feckless. Sadly, after initially supporting the Ravitch plan, Governor Paterson has opted to punt as well.

New York State's economy relies heavily on the infrastructure of New York City's transit system. If our leaders in Albany truly believe it makes sense to focus on the state's overall budget while abandoning New York City, they're in for a rude awakening.

Under the MTA's proposal, base fares would jump to $2.50, and monthly MetroCards would rise to $103. So that extra $20 the Obama administration has allocated in our payroll taxes is effectively consumed. Even worse, subway lines and bus routes will be eliminated in all five boroughs. Eight bus lines and one subway line will be eliminated in Queens alone.

New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has garnered substantial headlines for his efforts to recover A.I.G.'s bonus money. If he somehow identified a pretext to use his authority to resolve the MTA budget crisis, I would eagerly sign up to help elect him governor.

During the subway strike in December 2005, my Brooklyn-Manhattan commute was on foot. Now that the weather is warming up, I'm tempted do that again!

Come Home America: An Interview With Truth Teller William Greider

2009-03-22T16:35:00.008-04:00

I first became aware of William Greider after the publication of his 1981, Atlantic Monthly profile of President Reagan’s embattled Office of Management and Budget Director (“OMB”), David Stockman. At the time I was just a kid and the Reagan administration insisted they could simultaneously balance the budget, cut taxes and increase defense spending exponentially.

Greider’s reporting however exposed that even Stockman, doubted the fiscal prudence of Reaganomics. After the article’s publication, Stockman absorbed public humiliation when President Reagan took him “to the woodshed.” I trace that article as a seminal moment in my own political awareness.

Over the years, Greider has been a determined voice of truth against a backdrop of America’s pro-war, pro-Wall Street governing elites and their enablers inside the corporate media. While Alan Greenspan was celebrated, Greider warned that the Federal Reserve and other regulatory agencies were guilty of dereliction. When celebrated economists such as Paul Krugman extolled the virtues of free trade and globalization, Greider warned of diminished wages at home and condemned the shameful exploitation our consumption habits subsidized abroad.

Greider’s latest book, Come Home, America: The Rise and Fall (and Redeeming Promise) of Our Country, just published by Rodale, is a manifesto of hope and warning. In Chapter One, Greider writes:

“Think of America at this point as a muscular teenager, full of talent, adolescent energy, and youth’s over-reaching impulses. This is a critical stage in human development and for our nation it could go either way. Some nations that acted like willful children when they were young formed balanced societies when they became adults. Other nations have never really grown up.

The question, I think is whether-we-the people who proudly call ourselves Americans – can mature as a society. The country can develop a deeper sense of what matters most in life and what doesn’t. It can shed some self-destructive reflexes and acquire a wiser sense of national self-interest that is anchored in the nation’s ideals. Wisdom tempers egotism. This is true for both people and nations.

Or, the United States can plunge ahead self-indulgently, repeating destructive habits, acting out reckless ambitions, and getting into deeper trouble. We all know children who, for whatever reason, got older but never found themselves. This is possible for nations too, especially ones that refuse to reconcile themselves to new realities.

I am betting we will grow into our maturity and hoping that lots of Americans agree.”

Greider’s book chronicles why America is in dire straits and proposes numerous solutions to facilitate a better economic foundation for the struggling middle class. His recommendations include consolidating many of the Federal Reserve’s functions within the executive branch to ensure public accountability for monetary policy, replacing private pension plans such as 401ks with government pension plans instead and capping U.S. trade deficits through a general emergency tariff authorized under the charter of the World Trade Organization.

Even more than any singular remedy however, Greider’s book urges outraged citizens to embrace activism as a means of forcing the powerful in the public and private sectors to finally put our national interests above corporate greed. Ultimately, Greider's book argues that the current crisis is an opportunity for citizens to reengage and facilitate a more just and equitable society.

Greider is the best-selling author of five previous books, including One World, Ready or Not; Who Will Tell the People; and Secrets of the Temple. He’s written for the Washington Post and Rolling Stone as well as serving as an on-air correspondent for six PBS Frontline documentaries. Currently, Greider is the national affairs correspondent for The Nation.

Greider agreed to a podcast telephone interview with me this afternoon about his book and views. Our conversation was just over forty-eight minutes and among the topics we discussed were the current A.I.G. bonus controversy, the Democratic Party’s culpability in overriding state and local laws against usury, his recommendations to overhaul the Federal Reserve and pension system, America's destructive relationship with China, our excessive militarism and the fine line being walked by activists who support the Democratic Party and President Obama while, simultaneously pushing for real change.

Please refer to the flash media player below.

This interview can also be accessed via the Itunes Store at no cost by searching for either the "Intrepid Liberal Journal" or "Robert Ellman."

Malcom Smith's MTA Folly

2009-03-20T08:09:00.003-04:00

While the country obsesses over AIG bonuses and false populists in Washington feign outrage, a moment of truth for New Yorkers is soon upon us. After years of rampant cronyism and grotesque mismanagement, the Mass Transit Authority (“MTA”) is poised to stick it to struggling New Yorkers with an obscene fare hike to make up for their $1.2 billion budget deficit. Even before the current economic crisis, the MTA chronically illustrated state government at its worst. Now with New York City residents either out of work or living paycheck to paycheck, subway fares are poised to increase to $2.50 per ride combined with massive service cuts.

Governor David Paterson’s stewardship has largely been feckless but at least he’s tried to lead credibly on this issue. The same can be said of Assembly leader Sheldon Silver whom I typically despise. A commission chaired by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch recently proposed a reasonable payroll tax and tolls with respect to the East River and Harlem River bridges to spread the pain fairly. Two of the “three men in a room,” Paterson and Silver, signed onto Ravitch’s plan as did the most zealous subway riders advocacy group, the Straphangers Campaign.

The third member of the Albany governing triumvirate however, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, has not contributed to facilitating a credible resolution to the crisis. Instead he initially proposed a plan that was rightly lambasted by the New York Daily News earlier this week. Today, the New York Daily News is reporting that Smith is poised to delay a comprehensive bailout for the MTA and focus on the state budget. Smith self-righteously proclaims,

"If we can get everything done, I am sure we will, but there's 19 million people that are concerned about that budget,"

Hence, the MTA is only days away from imposing their draconian “doomsday” budget and New York City residents will reap the economic whirlwind. I don’t dispute the importance of the state’s overall budget. But that doesn’t excuse Smith’s grotesque failure of leadership. Especially when you have a proposed solution by the Ravitch Commission that spreads the pain judiciously.

Although I applaud Senator Smith's recent efforts to to make the legislative process in Albany more transparent, his callous disregard for New York City residents is unacceptable. Click here to contact Senator Smith’s office and urge him to adopt the Ravitch proposal immediately.

Clarence Darrow & Yogi Berra

2009-03-15T15:19:00.009-04:00

Arguably America’s greatest trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow, famously once said,

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."

Reading this morning’s headlines about A.I.G. utilizing $165 million of their $170 billion tax payer financed bailout for bonuses, reminded me of Darrow’s insight. The excuse being offered after all is that a “contract is a contract” and A.I.G. must fulfill their obligations.

Isn’t it curious how contracts are deemed sacrosanct for Wall Street beneficiaries but not blue-collar members of unions in the auto industry? Unions are expected to get “realistic” and “ renegotiate” their contracts but moneyed elites are allowed to carry on as before. Anyone who has the temerity to point out the contradiction is “unreasonable,” “angry,” “extreme,” or heaven forbid, one of those “crazy left wing bloggers.”

For what it’s worth, I personally believe all demographics must ultimately sacrifice for the greater good during this calamity. Unlike its imperial antecedents, the American empire has largely serviced the purpose of consumer excess – especially for the top. With America’s empire in decline, all hands must now be on deck to reverse our society’s cascade of ruin as we develop a new socio-economic paradigm, absent the perks and burdens of a hyper-power.

That means a tough transition for all of us as we cease to consume a quarter of the world’s resources, work to extricate ourselves from Beijing bankers and end our addiction to military conflict as a means of resolving disputes. Nonetheless, how can any president ask Americans to accept their health benefits being taxed, when A.I.G. is permitted to distribute unseemly bonuses after their conduct precipitated the current crisis? Bottom line, the worst insurance company in history is utilizing our tax dollars to reward their employees with bonuses, while the rest of us are treading water and being asked to shed even more skin.

I suspect most people understand we have to change in order to bring about change. That was my sense during the campaign as I canvassed and phonebanked. Indeed, as the Jon Stewart showdown with CNBC’s Jim Cramer illustrated, Americans are finally ready for hard truths after lies about WMD’s in Iraq while warning signs with respect to the current economic crisis were ignored. People are just desperate enough now to respond to hard truth if it’s backed up with a coherent strategy and the pain is absorbed fairly.

Alas, asking people who are currently teetering on the abyss to sacrifice has no credibility given the circumstances and messengers. How could it when tax-cheat Timothy Geithner and his plutocratic deregulating mentor from the Clinton Administration, Larry Summers, continue to subsidize thieves? The good people of A.I.G. are like the proverbial bank robbers holding bags of nitroglycerin. Give us your money they say or we’ll drop our nitroglycerin bags on what’s left of the global economy. So we continue to appease them.

Now in fairness to President Obama, he inherited what can only be described as a cluster fuck. And he hasn’t even been in office two months. Furthermore, much of the so-called political opposition as well as the establishment that critiques him, are simultaneously insipid and disingenuous. As I wrote a few days ago,

“Already you’re hearing voices question whether President Obama’s is pushing too much at once on the ‘system.’ These voices sound reasonable when they claim we should ‘fix the economy first’ and worry about health-care, energy and education later. They're enablers of capitalism’s dark underbelly, hoping to run out the clock on President Obama’s popularity and continue business as usual.”

Hence, I largely support the goals of President Obama’s proposed budget and have contempt for this “establishment” that failed to address the very challenges he dares to take on. Clarence Darrow would certainly recognize those that oppose Obama’s agenda as elites making laws to “protect what they have” at the expense of everyone else.

Yet each day that passes without the Obama administration implementing a credible, transparent and coherent strategy to address America’s banking and housing crisis, only serves to further tighten the Gordian knot of economic calamity. This week we're supposed to hear more from Secretary Geithner about his plans to resolve these challenges with a “public-private” partnership. I don’t have much faith in Geithner, an upwardly mobile tax-cheating plutocrat who previously served at the New York Federal Reserve Bank and engineered the TARP legislation that passed last fall.

So even though it hasn’t even been two months since Obama’s inaugural, a famous Yogi Berra quote also comes to mind:

“It gets late early around here.”

Update: The San Francisco Chronicle reports that A.I.G.'s bonus payout totals $450 million.

Thank You Chapeau!

2009-03-14T07:54:00.005-04:00

Earlier this week, Chapeau Blog Awards nominated this blog as one of two finalists for their news category. I am both honored and appreciative of the recognition. As a blogger, it's also gratifying to know that an effort is being made to recognize and promote the art of blogging itself.

Other categories that Chapeau is acknowledging as they select their "most brilliant blog" for 2009 include Arts & Design, Entertaining, Health & Beauty, Hobbies, Marketing & Advertising, Parenting, Real Estate & Development, Technology and Travel & Leisure. Naturally, the eligible voters are bloggers. To become a voter, please click here. Voting begins on April 14th and ends on April 30th.

Needless to say, I will do a reminder post just before voting begins!

Jim Cramer Belongs In Jail

2009-03-13T07:22:00.006-04:00

How many of you watched Jon Stewart's showdown with CNBC financial guru Jim Cramer? This video clip is exhibit A of why the Wall Street economy has ruined our country. The foundation of a healthy economy and democracy is truth and transparency. Instead, we have a sickly empire financed with phony money and the edifice is crumbling. It cannot be repaired. To suggest otherwise is delusional and criminally insane.

Alas, constructing a new socio-economic paradigmn is not like making instant coffee. The task ahead requires urgency, patience and trial and error. One absolute however is accountability for criminal behavior. Hence, we should all email the SEC (enforcement@sec.gov) and and demand an investigation of Jim Cramer. People like him have helped disintegrate the life savings of millions of people.

Change starts with justice.

Can Anyone Spare A Dime For the FDIC?

2009-03-12T07:22:00.004-04:00

The Boston Globe reports the following:

"The federal agency that insures bank deposits, which is asking for emergency powers to borrow up to $500 billion to take over failed banks, is facing a potential major shortfall in part because it collected no insurance premiums from most banks from 1996 to 2006.

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures deposits up to $250,000, tried for years to get congressional authority to collect the premiums in case of a looming crisis. But Congress believed that the fund was so well-capitalized - and that bank failures were so infrequent - that there was no need to collect the premiums for a decade, according to banking officials and analysts.

Now with 25 banks having failed last year, 17 so far this year, and many more expected in the coming months, the FDIC has proposed large new premiums for banks at the very time when many can least afford to pay. The agency collected $3 billion in the fees last year and has proposed collecting up to $27 billion this year, prompting an outcry from some banks that say it will force them to raise consumer fees and curtail lending."

I hope to hell Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is asked about this during his Senate testimony today. Not that I have any confidence in anything he would have to say about it. The insipid indecency of predatory conservatism has destroyed America's financial system and taken the global economy down with it. Currently, President Obama and congressional Democrats are overly timid in addressing the cascade of ruin upon us.

Local Banks! Local Banks! Local Banks!

2009-03-09T21:31:00.006-04:00

Readers of this blog may be tired of my repeating myself, but I'll repeat this anyway: our body politic is too consumed with the fate of mega-sized global banks. Instead we should be empowering local community sized banks that have a superior track record compared to CitiGroup or Bank of America. Hence, I was gratified when Missouri Democratic Senator, Claire McCaskill, made the following observation on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos yesterday:

"And as a matter of confidence, I think it's important for us to point out that there's two kinds of banks that we're talking about here. The -- the commercial banks, the small, local banks, they're fine, and people need to realize that. Your local bank is loaning money; it is operating as it always had.

It may be suffering in its stock prices because of what's going on in the stock market, but they are doing a great job. In fact, most of the commercial banks, the local banks, have loaned more money in the fourth quarter of last year than they had the fourth quarter the previous year."

Exactly. It’s most curious to me that other Democrats haven’t figured this out. Indeed, Democrats are far more supportive of bailing out these institutional monsters than Republicans!

I realize CitiGroup may be “too big to fail” and one can argue we can’t allow that to happen. CitiGroup and the global economy are inextricably entwined, as is AIG. I understand that. And if these bailouts were part of a comprehensive strategy to buy time as we transitioned towards a more sensible financial system, I would embrace it.

To this point however, neither President Obama nor his beleaguered tax cheating Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, have articulated a plan beyond “stabilizing” these financial monstrosities and regulating them better. That is not a viable strategy. Rather it resembles a Hail Mary attempt to toss money into a hole, hope it finds a floor and promise that regulation will ensure it’s not stolen.

A better strategy might well be to discontinue appropriating billions for failures such as CitiGroup in favor of establishing a protocol that rewards healthy local banks with money instead. Set aside the billions used to bail out the mega-sized global banks and establish a grant funding process that rewards independent community banks. As Senator McCaskill sagaciously pointed out, local banks have been responsible and are proactively lending.

At least that way, both the public as well as the global market place can then have confidence that thousands of banks across the nation are meeting viability threshold standards without any “moral hazards.” Furthermore, the independent community banks are far more likely to deliver any infusion of capital onto the street.

Many would call that concept radical and perhaps it is. But the circumstances we find ourselves in are extreme. Keeping CitiGroup, the world’s worst insurance company, AIG, and Bank of America afloat is not mitigating the pain. If we must experience this pain we should at least implement a strategy that builds a healthier financial system.

President Obama is a thoughtful judicious leader that I proudly worked to help elect. I am gratified by much of what he has done already. I strongly support Obama’s efforts at reforming health-care, developing an environment friendly energy policy and investing more in public education simultaneously, rather than give in to garden variety inside the beltway myopia.

But all Obama's good intentions and plans will never come to fruition unless his administration develops a strategy that facilitates a community friendly banking system. Otherwise, the American economy will be condemned to decades of sputtering like an armless swimmer as the global economy slides off the abyss.

Evan Bayh Is A Corporatist Class Warrior

2009-03-08T16:11:00.012-04:00

Among my least favorite Democrats is Indiana Senator, Evan Bayh. Bayh wasted no time after President Obama’s election to announce his formation of a Blue Dog caucus in the Senate.

With Republicans out of power, elites are more likely to favor Bayh and his Blue Dog friends as enablers in their ongoing crusade against wage earners, small business entrepreneurs and the poor. While liberals are expending energy on Rush Limbaugh and the insipid Republican minority, corporatist predators have shifted their focus to greasing corporate appeasers such as Evan Bayh.

Accordingly, Bayh is causing mischief with respect to the Omnibus Appropriations Act. For the record, Wisconsin Senator, Russ Feingold, a politician I have long admired has also opposed legislation to keep the government running in protest to the omnibus process itself. I am of course disappointed in Feingold for playing games during an economic calamity as well as increasingly disenchanted with Senator Harry Reid’s hapless performance as Majority Leader.

Unlike Feingold however, Bayh is continuing a pattern of using appealing moderate language such as “fiscal discipline” to support a corporatist agenda. Ironically, his father, Birch Bayh was a proud and unapologetic liberal who defended the middle class when he served in the Senate. Alas, the apple has fallen far from the tree with the son.

Bayh was among eighteen Senate Democrats to betray working people and join Republicans in support of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Prevention Act in 2005. For the record, so did Vice President Joe Biden, while he served in the Senate. At least Biden though had the excuse of representing a state with workers disproportionately employed by the banks and credit card companies. Bayh had no such excuse in supporting arguably the worst piece of domestic legislation in a generation.

A review of the online Federal Election Commission database with respect to Bayh’s contributions is especially instructive. Below is a bullet summary listing some of the donations Bayh has received over the years:

Between 1997 and 2006, Bayh received eight contributions from the American Bankers Associations Political Action Committee (BANKPAC), totaling $20,000. No wonder Bayh supported bankruptcy legislation in 2005. It’s also noteworthy that Bayh received a $2,300 contribution from the Bank of America Corporation Federal PAC on January 8, 2008.

Between 1998 and 2004, Bayh received 12 contributions from the General Dynamics Voluntary Political Contribution Plan (GDVPCP) totaling $17,000. General Dynamics is a notorious war profiteer and Bayh voted in favor of our disastrous war in Iraq.

Between 1997 and 2005, Bayh received 16 contributions from the General Electric Political Action Committee (GEPAC) totaling $17,000. GE is not only a war profiteer but also the parent company of NBC.

Between 1999 and 2005, Bayh received five contributions from the Citigroup Inc. Political Action Committee-Federal (Citigroup PAC-Federal) totaling $12,000.

Between 2000 and 2006, Bayh received six contributions from the Capital One Financial Corp. Assoc. Political Fund, totaling $11,000. What’s in your wallet Senator Bayh?

Between 1997 and 2005, Bayh received eleven contributions from the AFLAC Incorporated Political Action Committee (AFLACPAC), totaling $11,000. I’ve always admired the AFLAC “duck” from their commercials. AFLAC also provides helpful supplementary coverage to your garden variety HMO plan. Nonetheless, real comprehensive healthcare reform would render AFLAC irrelevant. So once the battle for healthcare reform is joined, you can be sure their duck will not be quacking on your side.

Between 2001 and 2003, Bayh received five contributions from the Aetna Inc. Political Action Committee totaling $8,000. Aetna is an insidious component of the medical industry complex favoring profit over wellness and gouging Americans at every opportunity.

Between 1997 and 2005, Bayh received six contributions from the Action Fund of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. totaling $5,500. No more need to be said about that.

I’m not looking to merely attack Senator Bayh. To be sure, the online FEC database also references generous contributions to him that I find less objectionable such as the AFL-CIO. Also, my home state Senator Charles Schumer is no prize either. That said, Senator Bayh illustrates why liberals must remain engaged and nurture strong counterweights to corporate influences responsible for America’s current cascade of ruin.

One such counterweight is Accountability Now founded by Jane Hamsher and Glenn Greenwald. Accountability Now is the netroots answer to special interest lobbyists that buy politicians like Bayh to support their pro-war/pro-corporatist agenda.

Already you’re hearing voices question whether President Obama’s is pushing too much at once on the “system.” These voices sound reasonable when they claim we should “fix the economy first” and worry about health-care, energy and education later. They're enablers of capitalism’s dark underbelly, hoping to run out the clock on President Obama’s popularity and continue business as usual.

We in the reality-based community know that America’s can’t be saved until we fix health-care, implement an effective environment friendly energy policy and strengthen public education from coast to coast. America’s salvation stems from a comprehensive overhaul of our priorities and how we divide a rapidly shrinking pie. That is why I am donating to Accountability Now and I hope readers here do the same.

Nothing concentrates a politician’s mind like the prospect of a primary challenge. Accountability Now is a vehicle to obtain leverage and pressure Democrats such as Evan Bayh that opposing progressive change will put their careers in jeopardy. Delivering power to the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 was merely Phase One. Phase Two is transforming the Democratic Party as the people’s party rather than simply existing as the lesser corporatist evil in a two party duopoly.

This also happens to be the best way to support President Barack Obama. And we must not fail in that endeavor. At stake is nothing less than peace and prosperity.

Overhaul Healthcare Now!

2009-03-05T23:07:00.005-05:00

This week, a close relative of mine had surgery. Hence, the escalating costs are very much on my mind today as well as the quality and access to medical care. She has health insurance but as we all know, insurance today costs more and covers less. Simply securing a room for her was ridiculously expensive.

President Obama is organizing a healthcare summit. Curious that even as our economy is suffering from a deflationary spiral, the cost of healthcare continues to spiral out of control. If our political system fails yet again to eliminate healthcare's chronic hyperinflation, most Americans are at risk of debtor's hell. Ultimately, the villains is America's "medical industrial complex" as Vice President Biden's chief economist, Jared Bernstein puts it.

We have appeased these predators for too long. The medical industrial complex is an evil empire that once and for all needs to be conquered on behalf of wage earners and small business owners. With respect to everyday living, the escalating cost of healthcare represents far more than an "existential threat" as we typically describe Iran's nuclear ambitions and imperils our national security to a much larger extent than the Taliban.

No more excuses, no more compromises and no more delays.

Uncle Michael

2009-03-03T20:39:00.003-05:00

The Republican Party is compromised of three core constituencies:

1) Predatory corporatists who steal from wage earners and destroy the planet.

2) Religious lunatics who believe "end times" are just around the corner, proselytize that anyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior is condemned to eternal damnation and don't support civil liberties for homosexuals.

3) Angry racists.

To the detriment of the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh has been the face and voice of all three-core constituencies. To counteract the Limbaugh brand, Republicans recently elected Michael Steele, an African American as their party's national chairman. Mr. Steele, a shameless apologist for the GOP's predatory corporatists, is working hard to soften the party's social image and had the temerity to suggest that the hateful Rush Limbaugh was not the real leader of his party. Sadly, Mr. Steele was coerced into apologizing to Mr. Limbaugh after a resulting backlash from the GOP's xenophobic/racist/misogynistic core.

One wonders how any self-respecting and decent human being could apologize for suggesting their political party was not led by a man who once said,

"I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark."

From this day forward, anyone who cowardly panders to Rush Limbaugh and the Republican Party's insipid indecency he represents, should be called an "Uncle Michael."

Obama To Nominate Kathleen Sebelius For HHS

2009-02-28T21:23:00.004-05:00

The Washington Post, as well as other news sources, are reporting that Kansas Governor, Kathleen Sebelius has accepted President Obama's invitation to be nominated as Secretary of Health and Human Services. In many ways, Sebelius is an attractive and compelling figure. A reformer from a conservative state, with family ties to both parties and a reputation for facilitating bipartisan consensus to enact progressive change. Sebelius was an early Obama supporter during the 2008 primary season and is eminently qualified for the position.

She's no Howard Dean, whom netroots liberals like myself prefer, conservatives loath and White House Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel despises. Thankfully however, she's also nothing like Tennessee Governor, Phil Bredesen, who is opposed to meaningful healthcare reform. Liberals of all stripes, including me, would have revolted had Obama nominated Bredesen instead.

Nonetheless, I disagree with picking Sebelius because she also happens to be the only Kansas Democrat with a chance of winning a senate seat in 2010. Republican incumbent Sam Brownback had previously announced he wouldn't seek re-election. A Democrat of Sebelius's stature could have a real chance to win this open seat.

As we have already seen with the stimulus debate, it is imperative that Democrats achieve a filibuster proof majority of sixty seats. Hence, Sebelius would better serve the cause of healthcare reform by staying home and campaigning for Brownback's open seat. I have to believe there were choices other than Sebelius, who support meaningful healthcare reform without being politically radioactive like Howard Dean.

The cause of healthcare reform is ill served by removing candidates who can pickup red states. Democrats may regret this pick if Obama's coattails are diminished during the midterm elections next year.

Obama The Fighter

2009-02-28T13:37:00.005-05:00

Earlier this week, I did not jump on the bandwagon following President Obama’s nationally televised speech. As speeches go, it further reinforced the growing stature gap between Obama and the Republican Party’s insipid indecency as illustrated by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. Nonetheless, my immediate reaction Tuesday evening was ,

“Obama's words and presence illustrated why I personally admire him but the substance of his administration's soon to be released budget are more important than this single speech. I still get a clinical thrill from observing how Obama's speeches impact others but I want to read the fine print of his budget proposal.”

Well, we’re still awaiting the fine print to be released in the spring. In the meantime, the administration has released an encouraging blueprint. Their 142 page outline, combined with this morning’s weekly address (access the video above), suggest the conciliatory Obama from the stimulus debate has been benched in favor of a pugnacious liberal.

John Edwards could have drafted today’s weekly address and Obama’s proposed budget offers a transformational paradigm shift. From cap and trade with respect to carbon emissions to setting aside $634 billion for healthcare reform, there is much to like about this budget from the liberal perspective. Even better, Obama threw down the gauntlet with today’s weekly address when he said,

"I realize that passing this budget won’t be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. I know that the insurance industry won’t like the idea that they’ll have to bid competitively to continue offering Medicare coverage, but that’s how we’ll help preserve and protect Medicare and lower health care costs for American families. I know that banks and big student lenders won’t like the idea that we’re ending their huge taxpayer subsidies, but that’s how we’ll save taxpayers nearly $50 billion and make college more affordable. I know that oil and gas companies won’t like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that’s how we’ll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. I know these steps won’t sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they’re gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

’So am I.’”

Thankfully, the president learned after the stimulus debate that he’s better served by establishing a high threshold at the onset of negotiations. Perhaps, the president also realizes that the public’s perception of him as “reasonable” following the stimulus debate allows his administration to take a firmer stand this time. That’s good because the stimulus debate is child’s play compared to the high stakes bargaining ahead.

Obviously, the budget Obama proposed will not be what ultimately passes through two houses of congress. Liberals don’t have a filibuster proof majority in the senate, Norm Coleman continues to tie up Al Franken in the courts and special interest money is flowing to conservative blue dog Democrats.

If so-called moderate senators such as Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Joe Lieberman put up a fight, than Obama should be prepared to stare them down. I suspect it won’t come to that however with those senators. Of greater concern may be senators such as influential Iowa Republican Charles Grassley, who will protest cuts to agricultural subsidies – especially if he convinces any Democrats to join him.

Hence, this process will require strong nerves and Obama not blinking. In 1995, President Bill Clinton prevailed in his showdown with Newt Gingrich because his reputation as a compromiser allowed him to appear tough without looking partisan. Similarly, Obama’s greatest political asset is that his fist in the velvet glove approach allows him to stand firm while appearing flexible.

It should also be noted, that Obama’s budget is far more honest than any we’ve seen from the executive branch in recent years because it doesn’t pretend that we’re not fighting two wars or ignore the possibilities of disasters such as Hurricane Katrina. Nonetheless, like all budgets, it has its own deceptions. For example, the economic growth projected by the administration seems unlikely, at least in the near term. To some extent, ignoring the possibility of low growth is their way of promoting needed confidence. Even if we stipulate to the political necessity of rosy projections, the administration better have a backup plan.

Another concern is just what the hell did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton promise the Chinese during her Asian trip? Our ability to afford a progressive agenda is contingent upon the Chinese continuing to finance our consumer debt. Reading between the lines, when Hillary Clinton said last week she didn’t want to let “issues” such as human rights interfere with the economic crisis or climate change, it was obvious that the administration promised the Butchers of Beijing something in return.

The administration and corporate press will likely parrot the line that our plans for deficit reduction has reassured foreign investors we can pay back our loans. If you believe that, I have a bridge here in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you. Even so, given the crisis he inherited, Obama had little choice but to assuage the Chinese and other foreign investors to finance our debt. Hopefully, the price for their forbearance won’t be too high.

So, a little more than a month into his presidency, Obama has moved further to the left domestically with his proposed budget. Ironically and perhaps tragically, President Obama has moved to the right with foreign policy as 17,000 troops are being deployed in Afghanistan without an exit strategy and our “pullout” from Iraq will still mean leaving behind 50,000 troops. That worries me because the last time a Democratic president tried to have guns and butter at the same time resulted in President Richard Nixon.

Follow Up Thoughts re Gov. Bobby Jindal

2009-02-25T07:03:00.005-05:00

Delivering the response to a president's speech in front of a joint session of congress, is arguably the toughest assignment in politics. Few garner enthusiastic reviews after a president benefits from the symbolic majesty of such a moment. Yes, Virginia Senator James Webb was terrific a couple years ago. I can also recall former Democratic House Speaker Jim Wright, delivering an effective response following Ronald Reagan's 1987 State of the Union speech.

Nonetheless, Jindal's performance last night was the most pitiful response I have seen since former Senate Republican leader Bob Dole in 1996. At the time of Dole's response, I was quite critical of Bill Clinton from the left. Nonetheless, it was apparent that no one in the Republican Party held a candle to him.

Governor Bobby Jindal's performance last night and even John McCain's petulance at the "Fiscal Responsibility Summit" the day before, illustrates that the stature gap between Republicans and President Obama is widening. How will this impact substance I wonder? It still requires sixty votes to move legislation in the Senate. When will President Obama opt to stare the Republicans down and dare them to filibuster? And would enough Republican's blink when confronted with Obama's stature?

I'm convinced that President Obama has an opportunity to use his political capital and bargain aggressively for a far more activist agenda than he has to this point. Obama's speeches are wonderful. I just hope he seizes the moment and negotiates more effectively than he did with the stimulus bill. Even as the stature gap between Obama and the insipid opposition party widens, liberals must remain vigilant on behalf of peace, prosperity and social justice. As much as I respect President Obama, substance matters more than serving a cult of personality.

Sober Times, Mature Leadership, Pitiful GOP

2009-02-24T22:57:00.007-05:00

Quickly, here are my six immediate impressions following President Obama's first speech in front of a joint session of congress and the Republican response delivered by Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal:

1) The three themes of the speech were hope, shared sacrifice and responsibility from government and society.

2) As with his inauguration speech, even as the president sought to reassure Americans better days were ahead, he reiterated we as a society could no longer live beyond our means.

3) With respect to the banking and credit crisis currently stoking populist outrage, Obama forthrightly told the nation he would not govern out of anger or make policy based upon Wall Street's daily high or lows. Readers of this blog already know my feelings about this subject.

4) This president clearly intends to spend his political capital before it evaporates on big ticket items such as health-care.

5) Obama's words and presence illustrated why I personally admire him but the substance of his administration's soon to be released budget are more important than this single speech. I still get a clinical thrill from observing how Obama's speeches impact others but I want to read the fine print of his budget proposal.

6) If Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal is the best the Republican's Party has to offer, they may go the way of the Whigs from Abraham Lincoln's era. The GOP is intellectually and morally bankrupt. This is unfortunate, because it's never good when one party is left to debate with itself. Politics works best when it's a vigorous competition within the marketplace of ideas. As the Republican Party only offers a failed ideology, the real policy debate is among the left like myself and centrist Democrats. Both sides are competing for Obama's attention and favor while Republicans are imploding from ossified titans such as John McCain and pitiful lite weights like Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin.

Monday Night Ponderings

2009-02-23T21:36:00.006-05:00

It will be interesting to observe how President Obama walks the fine line between addressing reality while simultaneously promoting hope during his first speech in front of a joint session of congress tomorrow night.

Even as I remain critical of President Obama’s centrist direction, there is no denying he dwarfs everyone else on the political scene. Today’s bipartisan fiscal responsibility summit with members of congress, business, leaders and academics, was brilliant stagecraft. Furthermore, granting Arizona Senator John McCain the honor of asking the first question further enhances Obama’s image as a self-assured transformational figure while diminishing his political adversaries. It also serves to address one of Democrats longstanding perceived vulnerabilities, that they are the party of wasteful spending, even though Republicans have a far worse track record as fiscal stewards.

Nonetheless, I fear President Obama's stated objective of halving the nation’s deficit by the end of his first term will do severe harm. Franklin Roosevelt made the disastrous mistake of listening to deficit hawks in 1936 and cut spending while the economy was just getting off the ground. A far better course would be to re-direct savings from reducing our troop presence in Iraq and the expiring Bush tax cuts to pumping more stimulus into the economy. Also, one wonders how much more nation building America could have at home with genuine procurement reform of the Pentagon. Alas, that is not likely as long as Defense Secretary Robert Gates is allowed to ignore the administration’s new lobbying restrictions with his appointments.

With respect to the metastasizing banking crisis, the unfolding narrative is a horrific kabuki dance. We’re gradually being prepared for inevitable nationalization as a temporary step until privatization is restored. What good is it however to restore privatization of these feculent mega-sized financial institutions, even if they’re subject to more regulation? The end result is analogous to rescuing a pyromaniac from burning himself just so he can drop a lit cigarette on a gas leak. I can accept the necessity of preventing these mega-sized institutions from collapsing as an emergency stopgap measure. But rescuing them should merely serve as a transition to ending their monopoly on the banking industry and restoring the prominence of independent community sized banks. America doesn’t need smaller government; it needs smaller banks instead of these global financial institutions that are too far removed from local communities to identify credit worthy risks or have a stake in the well being of localities. Citigroup, Bank of America and so forth represent exhibit A of globalization's destructive power and they can't be reformed.

NYBRI over at the Albany Project, provides a link to a joint letter by New York Senators Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand to President Obama. The senators advise that our struggling state will happily accept any stimulus money Republican governors refuse:

"New York receives 78 cents from the federal government for every dollar we send to Washington. If other states are willingly refusing federal support in this time of economic crisis, New York should benefit given our 'donor state' status."

Reading their letter, I can’t help but reminisce how Republican governors in states such as Wyoming, happily accepted wasteful money on dubious homeland security projects while New York City was shortchanged after 9/11.

Coping With Tragedy

2009-02-22T16:32:00.004-05:00

Among life’s harshest lessons is coping with grief when someone close is needlessly killed. My office co-worker, Melissa Kolis is learning that lesson after her close friend, Melissa Scherr died in a driving while intoxicated (“DWI”) hit and run accident a few weeks ago in Long Island. You can read more about this tragedy by clicking here and here.

Melissa Scherr’s family and friends are coming together to raise money for Mother’s Against Drunk Driving (“MADD”) in her memory. My colleague will be a participant for TEAM MELISSA SCHERR in the annual “Walk Like MADD” 5-K walk on May 31, 2009 at Farmingdale State College. This walk helps support programs for victims of drunk driving as well as to help prevent drunk driving and underage drinking.

As we’re all painfully aware, these are tough times and raising money for worthy causes is a formidable challenge. I can appreciate how many of you are reluctant to donate to any cause at the moment. Nonetheless, I urge my readers to consider the following facts as reported by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention:

Every day, 36 people in the United States die, and approximately 700 more are injured, in motor vehicle crashes that involve an alcohol-impaired driver.

In 2006, 13,470 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (32%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States.

Alcohol-related crashes in the United States cost about $51 billion a year.

The three bullets points referenced above are all preventable and prevention education in schools is a vital component of MADD’s mission.

I am so proud of my colleague for coping with this tragedy through community activism. Hence, I am asking my readers to please make a donation to MADD and help save lives. Just follow these four simple steps:

Step 1: Click here to access the donation webpage.

Step 2: Click on my colleague’s name, Melissa Kolis, under team members.

Step 3: Click on “Donate Now.”

Step 4: Choose your donation amount (Please note: There is an option to donate however much you would like) and follow the rest of the directions and click on “Next Step” to enter payment info/confirmation.

Again, my thanks to readers here for their consideration.

Obama's Weekly Address

2009-02-21T21:16:00.003-05:00

The most important news from President Obama's weekly address is that employers will be directed to withhold fewer taxes in paychecks. According to the administration, a "typical" family will take home $65 more every month after April 1st. The speed of this adjustment is impressive and wage earners will be able to determine the impact for themselves soon enough.

Next week President Obama delivers his first address to a joint session of congress. Thematically, the administration is attempting to project each policy as a component to an overall comprehensive economic recovery strategy. To date, we have seen three pieces of this strategy:

The stimulus package.

A housing plan to help nine million homeowners struggling to meet their financial obligations.

Continued bailouts for America's largest banks.

In my opinion, the administration's stimulus package and housing plan are conceptually on target but far too limited in scale. Both will help reduce the bleeding which is some consolation. As I’ve posted previously however, President Obama’s failure to leverage his political capital more effectively and aim higher is disappointing.

With respect to continued bailouts for banks, Obama’s strategy to repair our financial system is ill conceived and nationalization only a matter of time. Presently, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and his fellow plutocrat, economist Larry Sumners are focused on reviving large financial institutions such as Citigroup. Nobody with any clout in the body politic seems willing to admit the truth: hyper sized banks are irredeemable and bailing them out a waste of precious funds.

Instead our economic strategy should be focused on restoring smaller community banks as the source of credit and loans. Community sized banks have better track records with lending and are more inclined to promote the well-being of their localities. Both presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush empowered hyper sized banks such as Citigroup and Bank of America to swallow community sized banks.

Predatory conservatives accuse liberal Democrats of preferring “big government” to more sensible solutions. The real truth however is that predatory conservatives have destroyed the middle class with their fetish devotion to expanding the power and reach of financial institutions on steroids. Sadly, Democrats have been enablers to this madness.

Alas, financial industry careerists such as Timothy Geithner are not equipped intellectually or ideologically to facilitate the systemic change our financial system truly needs. Trying to “reform” our financial system with promises of better oversight is analogous to allowing a murderous pedophile to work in a daycare center and assuring everyone that the terms of his parole will keep everyone safe. Yet the corporate media will continue to spin bailouts of these economic barbarians as the global economy’s only answer.

Monday Night Hit & Run Thoughts

2009-02-16T20:47:00.007-05:00

Listening to Republicans sanctimoniously whine about “bipartisanship” is both humorous and grating. Their socio-economic philosophy is completely discredited yet they cry foul because Democrats have no enthusiasm for adopting their stale “ideas” which has the world on the brink of total catastrophe. If Democrats were to make policy changes based upon the world being round, Republicans would whine about being excluded for believing the world is flat. Bipartisanship is not possible when people who belong in a lunatic asylum lead the opposition party.

My visceral sense is that the stimulus debate was a seminal moment for President Obama. It’s a political victory, yet at the same time insufficient for what the country needs because he failed to define the terms of debate and bargained away too much at the onset of negotiations (read this post). If I read Obama correctly, he knows this as well and won’t be such an easy mark going forward. Obama's nominee for Health and Human Services may be a bellwether of his administration's direction. If it’s Tennessee governor Phil Bredesen, I’ll feel betrayed unless that appointment is coupled with a healthcare legislation czar determined to bargain hard with the HMOs. My preference is Howard Dean but that’s probably not going to happen because Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel hates him and Republicans hate truth tellers.

Nationalization of the banks is coming and President Obama knows it. First though will be the obligatory kabuki dance of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s “plan.” I suspect Geithner’s troubling and vague performance is partly attributed to the administration’s belief that citizens learning more truth about the insolvency of our banks would result in massive withdrawals. Speaking of truth, tomorrow night I plan to watch a PBS Frontline special about America's economic day of infamy: September 18th, 2008.

It will be interesting to contrast the rollout of Obama’s plan to stabilize housing with last week’s Geithner plan. The word is the administration will reveal far more details. More details with a housing plan is likely to generate confidence and hope. Whereas, as I referenced in the previous bullet point, with the Geithner plan, the powers that be are convinced confidence is best served by not revealing the complete truth.

Truth Telling Is A Thankless Job In the USA

2009-02-15T13:40:00.002-05:00

A few days ago an acquaintance of mine asked me, "Why are you liberals always so shrill?" Well, the video above is for the acquaintance that asked this question. Watch how truth teller Peter Schiff is consistently rebuffed every time he tries to warn that smoke and mirrors were sustaining our Wall Street economy.

To be a liberal in America has been analogous to watching a car crash in slow motion, screaming at the top of our lungs and be laughed at or called unpatriotic. This is true on the economy as well as issues of war and peace. Now that we have a president who is at least trying to address the mess we're in, these very same conservatives have become spendthrift doomsayers and decry that lack of “bipartisanship.” If these people had their way, brokers at Bear Stearns would have managed the Social Security trust fund! Think about it.

Hat tip to the talented blogger, Sean Paul Kelley over at the Agonist for this video.

Texas Republican Ron Paul Asking Questions Too Many Democrats Ignore

2009-02-14T22:41:00.005-05:00

I disagree with Ron Paul about most domestic policy issues. However, when it comes to war and peace, this Texas Republican dares to ask questions too many Democrats prefer to ignore.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes

2009-02-14T12:34:00.011-05:00

In the grown up world, honorable and reasonable people may initially disagree but eventually compromise upon a collective review of empirical evidence. It was in this spirit, that the nascent Obama administration reached out to Republicans with respect to their proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which finally passed both houses of congress yesterday.

Unfortunately, most Republican politicians are neither honorable nor reasonable. Instead, most Republican politicians are predatory conservatives dedicated to establishing a permanent corporate theocratic plutocracy. As far as they’re concerned, the 2008 election is merely a temporary setback and attempting bipartisanship with this crowd resulted in legislation far less bold than most economists hoped for.

Hence, it is in the spirit of admiration and support that I urge this new administration to absorb the following lesson: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes. President Obama is a quick study and has likely absorbed this lesson for himself. Indeed, I recall him often using the phrase “working majority” during the campaign. Nonetheless, it is instructive for both liberal activists as well his administration to always keep this simple phrase on the front lobes of our brains. Repeat after me: Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

This phrase is especially pertinent to the United States Senate. Senators are divas with parochial interests, outsized ambitions and a Constitution that empowers their narcissism. Hence, the only language these people truly understand is leverage with a proper dosage of ego massage. They know that any one of them has the power to hold any piece of proposed legislation hostage to their whims.

Indeed, senators sometimes behave as if they have the power of little Anthony Freemont in the classic Twilight Zone episode “It’s A Good Life.” Like that little boy, one can just imagine Republican minority leader Mitch McConnell, fantasizing about wishing supporters of universal healthcare into a cornfield never to be seen or heard from again. That is the mentality we’re dealing with.

The upside however is there will always be enough politicians prepared to bargain in order to elevate their own importance, demonstrate independence and serve the interests of their constituents. With respect to the stimulus legislation, the three so-called Republican moderate senators were Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and Maine’s Olympia Snow and Susan Collins. Connecticut’s “Independent” Republican patsy Joe Lieberman and conservative Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, also joined those three in bargaining with the Obama administration, the Senate majority and the House of Representatives.

Had President Obama initially proposed legislation far bolder they still would have bargained, a filibuster majority still would have been achieved and the end result would have been far superior to the legislation that ultimately passed. Next time around it may be a different group of Republican senators and recalcitrant Democrats doing the bargaining, perhaps related to geographic interests. As long as President Obama’s political standing remains high, it will always be possible to cut deals on favorable terms with a rotating group of senators because their relevance depends upon it.

Hence, a working majority will always be ripe for plucking even without a filibuster proof majority. And even if we had sixty Democratic senators, a few of them would threaten denying a filibuster proof majority to promote their independence and get what they want. At the end of the day, bipartisanship has nothing to with it. Leverage, enlightened self-interest, service to constituents or contributors and political survival are everything. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear.

The appropriate posture is to treat reluctant politicians with symbolic respect, bargain hard for every penny and compromise from a position of strength. That is the best way to maximize potential of a working majority going forward while simultaneously maintaining broad public support. Sometimes, operating a working majority will require President Obama to demonstrate toughness, walk away and threaten vetoes if a few senators opt to behave like Anthony Freemont in the name of bipartisanship.

Barack Obama is an impressive human being with many admirable qualities. Indeed, Obama represents an ennobling change of pace after George W. Bush’s insipid indecency. He is learning however that governing is a delicate balance requiring the dual personalities of Mahatma Ghandi and Don Vito Corleone. If anyone can achieve that delicate balance it’s this president. Nonetheless, we must remain vigilant and toughen his hide.

Bipartisanship No, Working Majority Yes.

Truth Teller William Greider

2009-02-12T07:06:00.004-05:00

I first read William Greider as a kid in the 1980s (yes, I was a nerd!) after his Atlantic Monthly article entitled, The Education of David Stockman was published in 1981. My Dad had left the article lying on top of the sports section which was my usual reading preference. For me personally, Greider's article was a seminal moment in my political awareness.

In the video above, Greider is essentially telling us Democrats that we can no longer be a little bit pregnant. Either Democrats opt to work on behalf of wage earners or the fat cats. Given the current economic crisis, straddling with half measures as recently offered by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is no longer sustainable. We liberals have an opportunity to seize this moment of crisis and restore the Democratic Party to what it was from FDR to LBJ.

I believe in President Barack Obama personally even as my critique of his administration so far may seem harsh. In our political system, Presidents are hesitant to be too out in front when it comes to bringing systemic progressive change. Legend has it that FDR once instructed a group of liberal reformers to "make me do it." That is the best way to support both Barack Obama and the Democratic Party. Winning in 2008 was stage one. Taking over the party so it can become an agent of peace and economic and social justice is stage two.

Obviously, stage two remains a far more formidable challenge than stage one. So called moderates will continue to rationalize kickbacks to agents of America's plutocracy as a way of keeping Democrats in the "center." It's up to us however to keep up the fight on behalf of the decency center.

UPDATE: A few weeks after this post I actually did a podcast interview with William Greider. Click here to access that post.

Hit & Run Thoughts

2009-02-11T22:15:00.003-05:00

I’m still processing the bizarre performance of Timothy Geithner yesterday with respect to the Obama administration’s inept plan to rescue America’s banks. It seems to me we are watching a kabuki dance unfold. Nationalization is only a matter of time but first the corporate media and Wall Street apologists need yet another demonstration of why the system as we’ve known it can’t be saved. If a few million American citizens are financially ruined during this demonstration I suppose it will be regarded as collateral damage.

Liberals need to begin mobilizing for what comes after the stimulus package is passed. There is no sense whining about President Obama’s mistake bargaining way too much at the onset of negotiations to appear bipartisan. What’s done is done and hopefully he’s learned the way a small child realizes that touching a hot stove burns. Instead we need to regain the initiative with the upcoming omnibus appropriations bill. Yes, it would have been better to maximize Obama’s political leverage in a comprehensive economic recovery package. But that ship has sailed so the next step is to win as much as possible in the appropriations process.

If you keep stocking your administration with center-right people it will result in a center-right presidency. Nominating Tennessee Governor Phil Bredesen as Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) would be tantamount to dropping a cluster bomb on the Democratic Party’s liberal base. Whenever HMOs regard a candidate for HHS to be “reasonable” it means another presidency with no healthcare reform.

As a Jew I am mortified at the rise of a fascist party in Israel. I had just turned 21 when I visited the Birkenau Concentration Camp in Poland in 1990 and to this day I have nightmares from walking those grounds. Concentration camps are the end result when extreme right wing political figures that initially appear to be clowns are not stopped. Make no mistake, Avigidor Lieberman is a fascist and so is his Israel Is Our Home party.

If Netenyahu prevails, Lieberman will exploit the rules of parliamentary democracy as his coalition partner and subvert Israel’s civil society in the name of national purity. Eventually, a Netenyahu government will be forced to disappoint Lieberman’s supporters when dealing with the United States. At that juncture, Lieberman will likely withdraw his support resulting in political chaos. Perhaps Netenyahu will become more inclined to reach out to centrist parties to maintain power. It is also possible however that a nationalist populist backlash will propel Lieberman into power in the next election. At best that could be the last election Israeli Arabs enjoy equals rights as voting citizens. I shudder to think about the worst that could happen.

I am no fan of Kadima’s Tzipi Livini. As far as I’m concerned she, her party and the Kadima-Labor governing coalition have innocent blood on their hands. Tragically though, Livini represents the last finger in the dike against Israel’s version of Vladimir Zhirinovsky. There is an old cliché that eventually we are doomed to resemble our enemies. We Jewish people above all others have no excuse for failing to recognize the danger that Avigidor Lieberman represents. That a figure like this could emerge in the Jewish state is a shameful irony.

Israeli Exit Polls Project Livini's Kadima As Winnter

2009-02-10T21:44:00.005-05:00

Israel's Haaretz is projecting Tzipi Livini of the "centrist" Kadima Party as the winner in today's election. Overall, the new math for Israel's Knesset, is projected as Kadima having won 29 seats, while Bibi Netenyahu's Likud Party doubled their total with 27 seats and Ehud Barak's Labor fell all the way back to 14 seats. Truthfully, none of the options were very good but Ehud Barak and Labor were the best of bad options. It is dismaying that Israel's once proud Labor Party was so thoroughly routed. The political left in Israel is a distant memory.

Please note that Israeli exit polls are notoriously unreliable. Hence, the homicidal Netenyahu may still prevail. If Livini is the victor, she will likely struggle to cobble a coalition of centrist parties together. Alas, if Netenyahu prevails over current projections, he will be able to form a majority government with far right crazy parties. Among the most dangerous of Netenyahu's likely coalition partners is Israel's answer to Pat Buchanan, Avigdor Lieberman of the Israel Is Our Home Party.

I cried when Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in November 1995. Rabin, a soldier-statesman, was the last political figure in Israel with any credibility possessing the will to pursue peace. A decade later the caliber of Israel's political class appears degraded beyond repair.

President Obama's First Prime Time Press Conference

2009-02-09T21:22:00.009-05:00

Click here to review a transcript of President Obama's press conference this evening as provided by CNN. Unfortunately, as of yet, I can't find any html video embedding coding of the press conference that works so linking the transcript is the best I can do.

Overall, I'm left with the following impressions:

Stylistically, no one on the political scene today can hold a candle to President Obama's ability to project intelligence, poise and composure. Substantively, however, the press was largely pathetic. Conservatives will likely gripe that not a single question was asked with respect to the tax problems of Obama's cabinet nominees and his team's suspect vetting process. And on that score conservatives have a valid complaint. Perhaps the press feels that's beating a dead horse but it certainly merited at least one question. If baseball's latest steroids controversy merited one question then how is it nobody asked a single question about Tom Daschle?

As for the economy, it irks me that the questions and Obama's answers were solely focused on the conservative point of view. Obama was defending the legitimacy of large spending against conservative criticism and the notion that only the federal government can inject the required capital. Listening to the questions and Obama's answers, one would think that the conservative critique is the only debate taking place. Somebody should have challenged President Obama from the liberal perspective and asked if the legislation offers too little spending. I suspect tomorrow's press conference with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will be far more revealing with respect to domestic policy than anything we heard this evening.

I found Obama's responses to questions about his strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan disturbingly vague. Indeed, I'm very concerned that the national security team of Robert Gates, Hillary Clinton and Jim Jones are thinking tactically with no exit strategy in sight.

Kudos to the Huffington Post for asking about Vermont Senator Leahy's proposal for a truth and reconciliation commission to address any crimes committed by the Bush Administration. Alas, it's quite apparent that the Obama administration will be at best passive actors in facilitating any accountability. It is imperative that the liberal netroots keep the pressure on and demand justice. On this there can be no compromise.

I hope Helen Thomas lives forever.

Reinventing America's Relations With the Muslim World: An Interview With Former CIA Analyst Emile Nakhleh

2009-02-08T16:37:00.008-05:00

Building consensus within America’s body politic and national security establishment for a new way forward with Muslims worldwide is a formidable challenge. Many Americans still don’t appreciate the complex nuances of Muslim society and remain stubbornly Islamophobic almost seven and half years after 9/11. Equally formidable is earning the goodwill of Muslims worldwide following the Iraq War as well as American atrocities perpetrated upon Islamic detainees at Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib. Hopefully, President Obama’s historic election has finally opened a path for constructive conversation about how America can most effectively engage the Muslim world.

The CIA’s former point man on Islam, Emile Nakahleh, has vigorously entered this conversation with his new book, A Necessary Engagement: Reinventing America’s Relations With the Muslim World (Princeton University Press). From 1991 to 2006, Nakahleh served as the director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program in the Directorate of Intelligence at the CIA. He holds a PhD in international relations and is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Nakhleh’s book combines a revealing memoir with in-depth analysis and proposals for the future. Ever since his retirement from the CIA in 2006, Nakhleh has been a vociferous critic of the Bush Administration’s legacy with respect to American-Muslim relations. Indeed, in September 2006, Nakhleh told Harper’s Magazine that because of Bush’s policies,

“We've lost a generation of goodwill in the Muslim world.”

Nakhleh's proposals for improving American-Muslim relations stems from his conversations with Muslim "interlocutors" spanning three decades. These conversations include government ministers, Islamic activists, academics and radicals. Nakhleh also examined and analyzed considerable polling data of Muslims worldwide.

Overall, Nakhleh contends that the vast majority of Muslims and America have common interests and values. His blueprint includes robust dialogue with mainstream Islamic political parties as well as a tangible commitment towards democracy in the Muslim world, even if we don’t always like the short-term electoral results. His book is an accessible 160 pages and divided into four chapters: (Chapter 1) Political Islam and Islamization, (Chapter 2) Intelligence, Political Islam, and Policymakers, (Chapter 3) Public Diplomacy: Issues and Attitudes and (Chapter 4) Public Diplomacy: A Blueprint.

Nakhleh was born in Galilee, north of Nazareth in Palestine and raised a Greek Catholic. He emigrated from Israel to the United States approximately 50 years ago and attended a Benedictine university in Minnesota for his B.A., a Jesuit university in Washington, D.C., for an M.A. and was awarded a Ph.D. from the American University in Washington, D.C. Prior to joining the CIA he taught at a catholic college in Maryland for 26 years.

Nakhleh agreed to a telephone interview with me in podcast format. Among the topics we discussed was whether he believes the surge in Iraq worked, the proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran inside Iraq, President Obama’s new strategy in Afghanistan, Hamas and America’s role in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and his argument that American commitment to democracy in the Muslim world is imperative to our long term interests.

Some of Nakhleh’s answers and views may surprise many listeners. Our conversation was just over 47 minutes. Please refer to the flash media player below.

Either searching for the “Intrepid Liberal Journal” or “Robert Ellman” can also access this interview at no cost via the Itunes Store.

Update: I erred in the introduction in the podcast when I said Emile Nakhleh worked for the CIA between 1991-1996. I meant to say he worked with the CIA between 1991-2006. Also, my apologies for the echo sound on Emile's side. Sometimes technology has its limits.

Obama's Weekly Address

2009-02-07T10:23:00.008-05:00

Here is my problem with the economic recovery plan making its way through congress. As President Obama notes, we have lost over 3.5 million jobs since this recession (if I still have my job it's a recession, if you lose your job it's a depression) began. He acknowledges that the economic recovery plan will only create 3 million jobs over two years in the "private sector." Hence, simple math suggests this plan is at best merely keeping the hole from getting deeper but not filling it. More likely though is that job losses will continue to outpace any job creation resulting from this plan. Why must this be so? Just to appease Republicans so they can have more corporate tax cuts which do not work?

If I were a member of congress, I would make my support contingent upon our addressing those items Republicans have forced out of out of this economic recovery plan such as family planning, bankruptcy relief for homeowners who have lost their jobs, education, healthcare and aid to the states.

All this talk about "stimulus" has allowed Republicans to demonize other elements vital to an economic recovery. For example, aid to states does create jobs. Without additional state aid, municipal governments across the country will be forced to raise taxes on citizens and businesses and scale back on public sector projects. Public sector jobs are just as legitimate as private sector jobs. Why are private sector jobs looked upon as the holy grail? It takes both to keep our economy humming.

So called moderates, predatory conservatives and their minions in the corporatist press have dominated this debate while truth has been drowned out. Obama should be using his bully pulpit to fight for something bolder and more expansive than he has.

It's About Time

2009-02-06T10:43:00.004-05:00

President Obama has finally taken the gloves off in defense of his economic stimulus plan. Below, is a report from the Today show covering his speech to the Democratic House caucus this morning. Perhaps the President is learning that he can't simply function within a "post partisan" ivory tower. There is no love in politics. Only leverage, respect and fear. The great ones can slug it out yet appear above the fray with a fist in the velvet glove. We often saw that from Obama during the campaign and we did again this morning.

Nonetheless, he should be fighting for something far bolder. Instead of pairing down aid to states and spending we should be eliminating tax cuts and investing more. Sad to say the body politic is resistant to doing anything more. To use a sports analogy, Obama is "taking what the defense gives him." In my opinion, Obama should unleash an all out blitz and create turnovers. It's only our civilization at stake.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Hit & Run Thoughts

2009-02-05T21:06:00.003-05:00

An activist friend of mine and I speculated over email whom President Obama might nominate as Secretary of Health and Human Services now that Tom Daschle dropped out. In a moment of delightful snark he wrote, “Maybe Obama will appoint another Republican. I don’t think we have enough of those in the cabinet.” With New Hampshire Republican Judd Gregg’s nomination as Commerce Secretary, the Obama Administration will have three Republicans in his cabinet. President George W. Bush only had one Democrat in his cabinet following the contested results in Florida after the 2000 election. Think about it.

I don’t agree with Republicans very often. However, I appreciated Republican Texas Congressman Ted Poe, who recently said that the new Mets baseball stadium should be called “Taxpayer Stadium” instead of Citifield. Damn straight!

One legacy President Bill Clinton can be proud of is Supreme Court Justice Judith Bader Ginsburg. Earlier today it was learned that Justice Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer. Too me Ginsburg has always epitomized what a Supreme Court Justice should be: principled yet open minded, fair, dignified and low-key. How awful that such a classy lady has to endure something so painful.

Elections do matter, even when the pace of change is not fast enough (see my previous post). Today President Obama signed The State Child Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009 (SCHIP). Granted it's not universal healthcare but with one stroke of the pen, Obama reversed one of the cruler domestic pieces of George W. Bush's presidency.

Obama As Gorbachev

2009-02-05T20:25:00.002-05:00

The early days of President Obama’s administration has me thinking about Michael Gorbachev. Gorbachev was arguably the world’s finest statesman in the latter part of the 20th century. Upon rising to the top of a homicidal and corrupt regime, Gorbachev presided over the disintegration of a nuclear empire with tolerance and sense. Under his leadership, the Soviet Union also became more tolerant of dissent and one-party domination came to an end.

During the “velvet revolutions” of 1989, Gorbachev resisted his country’s military industrial complex and allowed Eastern Europe to go its own way. Hence, a piece of the Berlin Wall is among my most prized possessions today. Gorbachev’s ultimate legacy is that the Cold War ended with minimal bloodshed and he deserves the world’s everlasting gratitude.

Yet Gorbachev today is not well regarded in Russia or any of the former Soviet Republics. He made the fateful mistake of trying to reform a system that was irredeemable, inept and beyond repair. As a result, Russians blame Gorbachev for the lean years that followed the Cold War’s end.

And that brings me to President Obama. Obama is well intentioned, intelligent and possesses a judicious temperament. He skillfully navigated the perilous waters of Chicago backroom politics, survived the gold fish bowl of a presidential campaign and prevailed over America’s racist culture. I’m hopeful that his presidency will restore America’s geopolitical standing, end our suicidal global war on terror posture and refocus our priorities to address global warming. Already, Obama has moved the terms of debate in a more progressive direction on numerous fronts. I remain a proud supporter.

Sadly though it is apparent that Obama either believes Wall Street capitalism can be reformed or is simply too beholden to the financial services sector to truly restructure America’s economy. Just as Soviet Communism was irredeemable, Wall Street capitalism is also beyond repair. Hence, I find the current debate about the economic stimulus package foolish. In the scheme of things the package that will ultimately pass is a penny ante game when America needs to entirely restructure it’s economic and social paradigm.

Hence, I suspect that the years ahead will not so much be about “right” vs. “left” but repair vs. change. Obama campaigned on change but in reality his administration is aligned with the cause of repair. It seems to me our Wall Street centric economy is beyond repair. A few years ago repair may have been possible but that ship has sailed. I hope I’m wrong but I suspect efforts at repair will only serve to deepen America’s cascade of ruin. I further suspect that citizens across the political spectrum will catch up to this reality long before our elected leaders. Hopefully, President Obama will figure it out sooner rather than later.