Mark Teixeira and America

I am a New York Yankees fan. 

For much of the past decade, that has meant enduring incessant whining from fans of other teams about how the Yankees spoil baseball by outspending every other team to acquire the best available players. Many of these complaints come with appeals to institute a salary cap in the interest of fairness. 

What on Earth does this have to do with public affairs? Stay with me, I'm getting there. 

Quite often the same friends of mine who argued for salary caps, luxury taxes and other forms of socialism in professional sports held firmly right-wing political views. In their minds, government was always wrong and the private, unfettered market always right — unless the private market kept their team behind the Yankees in the standings. 

Today a Met fan I know, brimming with hateful inferiority over the latest Yankee free-agent conquest (all-star first baseman Mark Teixeira) challenged me to explain why in baseball I'm a proponent of the rich getting richer (his words) but in politics I support more progressive policies. 

Well, that's pretty easy. Government and business are separate spheres. Professional sports are part of the business world, not of government. Pro teams are for-profit enterprises, not participants in some idyllic Olympiad. And for-profit companies are free to choose different strategies to maximize profits. Some focus less on the quality of the product or service they provide and more on minimizing costs. Think Wal-Mart. Others stress quality above all else, betting that consumers will happily absorb the increased costs of making the world's best products. Apple Computer and BMW fit into this category. Some plow profits back into the company to fuel future growth and others distribute the bulk of profits to shareholders. 

In baseball, the Yankees are like Apple and BMW, investing in quality and future growth. Many other teams — the Oaklands, Milwaukees, Kansas Citys and Minnesotas of the league — are more like Wal-Mart, preferring to slash operating costs and channel profits into the owners' pockets. As is the case with other businesses, there is no guarantee than any given strategy will succeed. Other teams, like the Mets and Orioles, also are among the highest in payroll because they try to employ the same approach that the Yankees do. They're just not quite as good at it. One exception would be the Red Sox, who long have been the #2 or #3 payroll team and, as much as it pains me to admit it, have been far more successful in the past few years than the Bronx Bombers. Indeed, the Yankees' failure to win the World Series since 2001 is perhaps the most powerful proof that the whiners' theory is fatally flawed. 

The point is that sports is a business. And in business, you don't see Apple deciding to pay a luxury tax on the iPhone so that the poor slobs at Research In Motion and Hewlett-Packard have a chance at first place, too. Yet that's precisely what the Yankees do, year-in and year-out, under baseball's welfare system. 

Now, what about government? History has shown us that a completely unfettered market, characterized by rational actors pursuing self-interest above public interest, will eventually cause widespread public damage. That is precisely what has happened over the past year with the housing bubble and the global financial crisis. The lesson to be learned here is that sparing, thoughtful doses of government intervention in the private market are necessary to prevent capitalism, the greatest system ever devised for allocating resources among humankind, from eating itself.  

Socialistic intervention with the functioning of the private market is most definitely not warranted, however, in the absence of such a threat to the general public. Simply penalizing the most successful competitor in an industry so that the also-rans can get their turn at first place is not just stupid, it's un-American. 

Sorry, Mets fans.   

Blagojevich. Blecchh.

If "Blagojevic" sounds like something your 2-year-old might say after a mouthful of Brussels sprouts, well, the little one might be on to something. 

That's because what Gov. Rod Blagojevich of Illinois today stands accused of doing is truly disgusting. The US Attorney from the Northern District of Illinois this morning released a 76-page complaint charging the governor with, among other things, attempting to sell president-elect Barack Obama's now-vacant seat in the US Senate for half a million dollars. 

Under Illinois law, the governor has the sole power to appoint someone to serve the balance of Obama's term. And Blagojevich (pronounced bluh-GOY-uh-vich) allegedly sought to milk that power for all it was worth, and then some. According to the New York Times, federal prosecutors taped the governor telling associates that he intended to use the power of the appointment to "make money" — specifically, about "250,000 to 300,000 a year." In addition to soliciting an outright bribe of $500,000 from someone referred to in the federal complaint only as "Candidate 5." Blagojevich is accused of trying to get candidates for the seat to appoint him and his wife to various paid positions on corporate and non-profit boards. You can read the full complaint here. 

Predictably, this is not Blagojevich's first run-in with the law. He and members of his administration are the subject of a long-running federal inquiry into influence peddling and corruption, according to news reports. And, like so many others who abuse the public trust, he originally won election to office as a reformer of corruption. 

Too often our politics, and media coverage of it, is awash in manufactured scandal. This is the genuine article. I'm thankful Blagojevich got caught. And I hope and expect that the president-elect will roundly condemn his fellow Illinois Democrat. 

Obama Tarts Himself Up for the DNC

So it was really cool how Barack Obama harnessed the power of the Internet to help propel his underdog presidential campaign all the way to the White House. Kind of like a political version of mass email marketing. Wait a minute, mass email marketing? Is it too late to activate my spam filter?

Let me explain. As a supporter of the campaign, I received frequent emails from it, updating me on campaign strategy, new advertisements and Obama's policy positions. That was fun and interesting. Most of the emails also asked for money, which was somewhat annoying but ultimately bearable because that's what political campaigns do, especially nationwide ones. 

Now that he is the President-elect the emails keep comin'. 

Sometimes, that's a good thing. Yesterday morning I got a message regarding the announcement of Obama's national security team. As I wrote earlier this month, Obama seems intent on continuing his use of digital media as president. That should help all of us be more engaged in public affairs. 

But sometimes it's not such a good thing. Like earlier today, when I received the following note: 

Citizen (They actually used my real name, but...)--

This holiday season, celebrate the historic accomplishment of our movement for change. Treat yourself or a loved one to a limited edition Obama fleece jacket.

Make a donation of $50 or more right now and get an official Obama fleece to mark an amazing year:

[PHOTO OF REALLY CHEESY ROYAL BLUE FLEECE JACKETS WITH THE OBAMA "O" ON THE LEFT CHEST]

Items purchased by December 15th are guaranteed to be delivered before December 25th.

When you make your donation, you'll be supporting the Democratic National Committee. The resources they invested in the 50-state organizing strategy made this movement possible -- help us build for future victories together.

Share this amazing moment with your friends and family. Thanks to supporters like you, we all have the opportunity to bring real change to America.

Get your holiday Obama fleece today:

https://donate.barackobama.com/fleece

Thank you,

Obama for America

Now, I suppose I should have expected this sort of thing. But it just doesn't sit well with me. I supported a candidate, not a party. I guess you can't blame Obama for trying to pay back the DNC for its support during the campaign. Still, I hope this is the last email of its kind. Besides the fact that no one with even the faintest fashion sense would dream of actually wearing one of these positively ghastly garments — I wish I could find a way to paste the picture in this post, but think intramural team meets Dharma Initiative and you'll get the picture — this is not the kind of thing that a sitting president (well, almost sitting president) should be doing. All I can think of is Bill Clinton and the Lincoln Bedroom. 

I don't think we're actually headed down that road again. 

At least I hope we're not. 

Meantime, that spam filter is on standby. 

Happy Thanksgiving to My Fellow Citizens

I have lots to be thankful for. This year I'm also thankful for the creative outlet that is this blog, and especially for those of you who indulge me by regularly reading and contributing to it.

Here's a little token of my appreciation — a song and video about the first Thanksgiving that hopefully will stretch your minds a bit. Have a very happy, healthy and safe Turkey Day!

Charlie Rangel: Victim of Vanity

Of the seven deadly sins, pride is often deemed the worst, and the root of the other six. For politicians, who are expert at violating many of the seven at once, pride is also the most common and quite often the deadliest. Just ask Charlie Rangel. 

Rangel is facing a potential House Ethics Committee investigation of his ties to Nabors Industries. According to an outstanding investigative article in Tuesday's New York Times, Rangel last year reversed his longstanding opposition to eliminating the loophole that allowed Nabors and other companies to shirk paying taxes by legally incorporating offshore despite functionally being headquartered in the US. 

Why the change of heart? It appears that Nabors' CEO, Eugene Isenberg, pledged $1 million to a school of public service that City College of New York plans to name in Rangel's honor. In fact, on the morning that a bill eliminating the loophole was scheduled to be marked up for a floor vote from the House Ways and Means Committee, which oversees tax policy and is chaired by Rangel, the New York Democrat had breakfast with Isenberg to discuss his support for the CCNY project and then met with a Nabors lobbyist to talk about the bill. The legislation, despite having cleared the Senate by a 97-3 vote, never made it out of committee in the House, and Nabors continues to evade paying US taxes. 

Rangel meekly offers to the Times that he doesn't remember meeting with the Nabors lobbyist and that he didn't know Isenberg had made the $1 million pledge. That's almost as bad as his claims back in September that he couldn't get to the bottom of how much tax he owed on a Dominican villa because he couldn't understand Spanish. 

Ahhhh, vanity. Rangel fancies himself an historical figure, and certainly, as one of the most senior African-Americans in Congressional history, he is. The CCNY school is in his home district of Harlem, where he occupies a grand residence comprised of four rent-stabilized apartments obtained in a sweetheart deal with a politically connected real-estate developer. He even used one of the apartments as a campaign office, in violation of state rules. The Rangel School of Public Service would be the capstone of his legacy. If only people would fund it. 

Rangel's recent foibles show a certain, shall we say, flexible attitude toward doing right by his constituents and the other Americans at whose pleasure he serves. Will a rival Democrat, fueled by ambition — a not-quite-deadly, yet dangerous trait — decide to challenge him next November? I certainly hope so. The people of Harlem deserve better. 

Vote in the Hillary/State Poll!

Have an opinion about whether President-elect Obama should appoint Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State? 

Share it with your fellow citizens by voting in the Citizen poll, beneath the links on the right-hand margin. 

And if you have any thoughts on the issue, please post a comment on either this post or my earlier post about Hillary's potential appointment. 

Thanks!

Hillary and the Last Gasp of the Me Generation

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don't stand in the doorway

Don't block up the hall

For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled

There's a battle outside and it's ragin'

It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

For the times they are a changin'

—Bob Dylan, 1963

Odds are, Hillary Rodham sang these words as a teenager, perhaps as an idealistic Wellesley undergraduate who was seeking, as she put it in that institution's 1969 commencement address, "a more immediate, ecstatic and penetrating mode of living." 

They are the words that helped drive a generation of young Americans who saw much to change in the world and decided to take action. Much of this generation's work and service to its country, and indeed the world, has been admirable. Yet it also has been characterized by a showy, often counterproductive, preoccupation with itself. The 60s counterculture mantra "don't trust anyone over 30" was essentially another way of saying "we are the only ones who get it — the only ones who matter." 

As the wide-eyed 60s gave way to the disappointing, hedonistic 70s and the greedy 80s, the Baby Boomers became the Me Generation. And since the early 90s they have controlled the reins of power in the United States — the White House, Congress, governors mansions and state legislatures, big corporations, the media, the non-profit sector, you name it. And the same pattern held sway, good intentions (and often good deeds) mixed with equal portions of juvenile entitlement, vindictiveness and egomania. 

The Clinton and Bush White Houses exemplified this approach, and the American electorate soundly repudiated it on Nov. 4.

Today, in the aftermath of that vote, Bob Dylan's words invoke a different message to the Me generation: Get over yourselves. 

And that brings me back to Hillary. 

Hillary. A first-name-only icon like Ike, Evita, Cher, Pele, Madonna, Oprah and Ichiro. 

Like so many other Boomers she has done a lot of good for the world. But ultimately, it's all about her. Her campaign addresses were filled with "I" and "me." Obama preferred to invoke "you," "we" and "us." Even after she had been mathematically eliminated from capturing the Democratic nomination for president, she refused to yield the stage to Obama, delivering a speech in New York that all but denied the plain reality of her defeat. Instead, she offered up a paean to herself. Here are some excerpts to refresh your memory:

You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, 'What does Hillary want? What does she want?'

Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we've come and where we need to go as a party, it's a question I don't take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

And in the coming days, I'll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.

Flabbergasting. The vainglorious egomaniac simply couldn't entertain the possibility that she lost, and that she did not have the right to get what she wanted. 

Now, the business of America is once more on hold while Hillary figures out what she wants. 

President-elect Obama is forced to delay making critical decisions about the rest of his national security team, and is distracted from the far more important task of appointing a Treasury secretary, amid the drama of whether Hillary will be appointed Secretary of State. Meanwhile, leaks are flying, stories are constantly changing and the focus of the nation is on Hillary rather than on solving our formidable problems, which are getting worse by the minute. 

How on Earth did this happen during the no-drama Obama transition?

My first thought when I heard the news of Senator Clinton's potential appointment was that the Billary crew leaked this to the press to back Obama into a corner. She's very junior in the Senate, an institution where seniority means everything, so the best of several lousy options for her immediate future would be to angle for a major cabinet post. I did not, however, think Obama would entertain this notion for a moment. Just as she'd angled for the VP job and been rebuked, so, too, would she fail in this quest. Obama represents putting the Me generation in the rearview mirror. It's what he believes in. It's what he campaigned on. It's how so many of us hoped he would govern. Isn't it? And if he wasn't bullied into choosing her as VP, he probably wouldn't be pressured into appointing her to his cabinet. 

But once it became clear that this was not just trumped up by the Clinton alternative-reality machine, another thought kicked in. Obama, as his victory two weeks ago demonstrated, is a far better politician than he's been given credit for. Bringing Hillary into the cabinet may be a coldly calculated move to marginalize her politically, straight out of Sun Tzu's playbook: keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. Given her track record, Obama would be stupid to not expect her to challenge him in 2012. For Hillary, staying in the Senate would mean two years of impotent drudgery at the feet of Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy, but, more importantly, it would provide the same platform for a presidential run that it did this time around. Being a critical part of the Obama administration, on the other hand, would effectively prevent her from running to succeed him. 

Others have suggested that the two candidates struck a deal that promised her a cabinet position in return for her aggressive post-primary campaign support. 

I don't know how it happened, but I do know this: I don't like it, and it's a bad idea. 

If Obama in fact appoints her to marginalize her politically, I will have lost a bit of respect for him. Secretary of State is a vitally important job in any administration. With two wars going on and our reputation abroad in need of massive repair, it's even more critical than usual. Hiring Hillary just to keep her from running against him in four years would be exactly the kind of cynical, permanent-campaign governing that Americans want Obama to end. So I hope I'm wrong about that motive. 

Some have suggested that picking Hillary for the State post is the ultimate repudiation of the politics of the Clinton-Bush years, precisely because Hillary has been so mortal an enemy of Obama's in the past. "Appointing a Clinton to the cabinet," wrote the Times' Maureen Dowd on Saturday, "would be so un-Clintonian." 

I don't buy that. The bigger issue, as Dowd's colleague Thomas Friedman astutely pointed out in his Times column earlier this week, is that the Secretary of State and the president must present an unquestionably united front to the rest of the world. They need to have each other's back, so to speak, or foreign leaders — particularly our enemies, with whom Obama has rightly vowed to resume normal diplomatic relations — will pounce. And that stems from liking and trusting one another — from having similar world views, styles and personalities. I very well could be wrong about this, but everything I've seen and heard about these two people tells me that they could not have such a working relationship. And that would be very bad for the country. 

Finally, and not to be underestimated, there's the baggage factor. Do we really want four (or eight) more years of Billary on the national stage — and worse, using the power of the State Department to carry out their infantile grudges and paranoid insecurities? 

The world is already infatuated with Obama and eager to deal with him instead of with Bush. What he needs as Secretary of State is someone who has proven herself as an effective diplomat, and someone who can faithfully execute his foreign policy for a new era. He doesn't need someone who embodies the divisive, me-first mindset of the generation that is finally beginning to take its last breaths in power. 

Please, Mr. Obama, do the right thing. 

The line it is drawn

The curse it is cast

The slow one now will later be fast

As the present now will later be past

The order is rapidly fadin'

And the first one now will later be last

For the times they are a changin'

Bush at Midnight

So the thrill of the chase is gone and now the mundane reality of the relationship begins. 

This may sum up how many of you are feeling now that the excitement of the presidential election campaign is over. Turnout was high and passions ran higher, revealing a level of civic engagement in public affairs not seen for many years. With the contest over, it's natural to feel a bit of a letdown and pay a little less attention. I know I, for one, have been somewhat less inspired to write in recent days (not to mention too busy to spend much time on the blog). 

But now is the time to start paying more attention, not less. 

Exhibit A: news that the Bush Administration, in its waning days, is taking the black art of passing "midnight regulations," first introduced by the Carter Administration, to a new low. Here's a glimpse at what's on the docket, courtesy of Elizabeth Kolbert, writing in this week's New Yorker:

Among the many new regulations—or, rather, deregulations—the Administration has proposed are rules that would: make it harder for the government to limit workers’ exposure to toxins, eliminate environmental review from decisions affecting fisheries, and ease restrictions on companies that blow up mountains to get at the coal underneath them. Other midnight regulations in the works include rules to allow “factory farms” to ignore the Clean Water Act, rules making it tougher for employees to take family or medical leave, and rules that would effectively gut the Endangered Species Act.

Heckuva parting gift to the nation, eh? Can we choose the Bush-Cheney home game instead? I'll take cronyism for 600, Alex. No, make that torture for 1000. Daily Double — woo-hoo!

OK, end of snide remarks. 

In addition to keeping a watchful eye on the departing Administration, it's also critical to monitor what President-elect Obama is doing as he puts together his government, and what Congress may or may not do in any lame-duck session. In the past week alone we've had rumors about Hillary Clinton being appointed Secretary of State (I have to admit cringing at that one, and am still not sure what I think of it... likely a topic for a future post), a series of Congressional hearings on the financial crisis and a potential bailout of the automobile industry, as well as debate over future economic stimulus and financial regulatory overhaul. 

These are all far more important than whatever is said or not said on the campaign trail. They will affect our lives profoundly. Now is the time to be engaged. 

Video Killed the Radio Star — Or Did It?

At midnight on August 1, 1981, MTV began broadcasting. This was back in the days when it played only music videos (imagine that), and its very first, appropriately, was a little ditty by the Buggles called "Video Killed the Radio Star." For those of you who, like me, are old enough to remember this and want a little nostalgia fix, here you go:



OK, back to the blog.

Since that moment 27 years ago, the Internet has become ubiquitous. A majority of Americans has broadband service at home. Tens of millions can view email and video on mobile devices like iPhones and Blackberries. 

So why do our leaders still rely on the radio to communicate with citizens? 

Each week the president delivers a radio address to the nation. Typically issues of great importance to citizens are discussed. The opposition party also delivers a response, much like the way an opposition leader speaks on national television following a president's annual State of the Union address. After being elected president last week, for example, Barack Obama delivered the Democratic Party's weekly radio address, using the occasion to lay out much of his early agenda. 

I've never heard one of these addresses. Have you? Isn't it a little bizarre that, decades after television supplanted radio and well into the digital information age, our government chooses such an outdated medium of communication? Our cratering economy may make it feel like the 1930s, when Americans huddled around their radios to listen to FDR's fireside chats. But it isn't. 

To be sure, there are some legitimate reasons why radio makes sense. For one, the tens of millions of Americans who don't have broadband (or any) Internet access can tune into radio at little to no cost. Of course, they could also tune in to network television for free, presuming they own sets. I don't know the details of how all this evolved, but I'm guessing that television networks have judged their time too valuable to give away to politicians each week, and their lobbyists have convinced Congress of the same, thus the persistence of the radio address. 

It's also true that the press pay attention to these addresses and report on them, disseminating their messages to citizens who don't tune in. And the president and opposition leaders often repeat the themes from their radio addresses in press conferences, which results in these messages being carried on television, the Internet and print media. 

Still, I'm flabbergasted that our leaders are not making better use of cheap, widely available technology to communicate more directly and effectively with citizens. Why not convert the radio addresses into video addresses that are posted on the Internet and emailed, along with a text transcript, to citizens? For those without broadband or any Internet access, the audio could still be broadcast on the radio. But those of us who do rely on the internet and mobile devices could watch these speeches at our leisure -- after work, before retiring for the night, during commutes. Citizens could sign up for email alerts so they don't have to check websites regularly. It would improve participation in the democratic process. 

In this election we saw the power of the Internet. Obama used the medium very effectively to organize a community (hmmm...) of supporters that spanned all 50 states (and those supporters used the Internet to quickly debunk the silly false rumors being spread about him, a stark contrast with the sliming of John Kerry in 2004). His backers regularly received video updates from campaign staff and the candidates on the ticket. My hope is that as president, he will try to apply these same principles to governing. That will be a good thing for everyone —just as long as he doesn't wear huge glasses and a silver lame´ jacket.

Gay Marriage: What's the Big Deal?

Help me understand this. Why shouldn't two gay people who love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment to one another be able to marry one another?

I've thought about this a lot and I've never been able to understand the opposition to gay marriage except that it is simply a form of discrimination against homosexuals. I've heard people say that they don't oppose homosexuality but think that marriage should be only between a man and a woman. I can't reconcile those positions intellectually. If you accept homosexuality then why shouldn't you want gays to be able to marry one another and enjoy the same rights and privileges as heterosexual spouses? How can so many religious conservatives who oppose gay marriage want to promote loving families yet prevent their formation?

Obviously the defeat last week of Proposition 8 in California got me to thinking about this again, and I still can't figure it out. Am I missing something here? Please help.

The Day After: Let the Healing Begin

Today I am very proud to be an American. 

I feel that pride every time the people of our great nation peacefully hand the reins of power from one president to another, regardless of whether the winner is the guy I voted for. It is what separates us from so many other countries. Our founders' great experiment with constitutional democracy, born in an era of monarchs and tyrants, continues to set the example for the rest of the world.  

But today is different. And it is different because of who Barack Obama is, and what he represents. 

Today is different because a black man has become the leader of the same United States of America that codified slavery into its constitution 220 years ago and continued to tolerate racial segregation, discrimination and persecution for generations after emancipating African and African-American slaves. 

Today is also different because it promises an end to decades of bitter division among Americans. Our nation has for too long been cleaved into warring factions, divided over civil rights, Vietnam, religion and social issues. Politicians first exploited these developing cracks in our society in the late 1960s, with the ascent of Nixon's Silent Majority. This slow-growing cancer on our nation metastasized over the past 16 years, with the ascents of the baby boomers Bill Clinton and George W. Bush to the White House. What once was a government of honorable, decent individuals, who held the best interests of the nation at heart despite their often strong disagreements, swiftly devolved into a death battle of glorified high school cliques. These overgrown children and their minions devoted more energy to pointing fingers, calling names and holding grudges in the selfish pursuit of political power than they did to doing the right thing for our country and its sovereign citizens. Control of government became a mere instrument for advancing the next electoral campaign. Our founders meant for this to happen the other way around. 

And today is different because it finally gives Americans something to cheer about after a long, depressing stretch of bad news that had even the most optimistic of patriots worried that the nation's best days may already have passed. Clinton ended his reign by defiling the White House and lying straight to our faces on national television. The ballot-box irregularities and Supreme Court resolution of the 2000 election left a potent, sour taste in the mouths of many Americans. Soon thereafter the bursting of the dot-com bubble and a spate of corporate scandals, including the fraudulent collapses of Enron, WorldCom, Tyco International and Adelphia Communications, hit the economy. Then came the shock, horror and deep national grief of 9/11, war in Afghanistan and a military misadventure in Iraq that has overstretched our budget, torn apart families and extinguished tens of thousands of lives. Since then we've also seen New Orleans devastated by Hurricane Katrina. We've seen North Korea and Iran advance their nuclear weapons programs. And we've witnessed the inflation and explosion of a gargantuan real-estate bubble that has plunged us into the worst financial and economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

Today, with Barack Obama as president-elect, we can start the healing process. As an Ivy League-educated black man, raised largely by his white, working-class grandparents, he transcends racial, economic and social barriers. As the first post-boomer president, elected with an outpouring of support from long-apathetic young people, he transcends generations and is not bound by the identity politics and old grudges of the 60s and Vietnam. And as a man who campaigned on hope, confidence and civic responsibility — on inspiring the better angels of our nature instead of exploiting our worst fears — he can begin to give us something, at long last, to look forward to. 

I was particularly struck last night by the televised images of people pouring into the streets to celebrate Obama's victory — in Chicago's Grant Park, in New York's Harlem and Times Square, on college campuses throughout the nation and, indeed, on Pennsylvania Avenue, in front of the White House. This is truly like no other election we've seen. I am not ashamed to admit shedding tears at the sight, the sound, the gravity of it all, and I struggled to think of a modern parallel. The only other time I've seen such national jubilation was when the US ice hockey team improbably defeated the USSR at the 1980 Olympic Games in Lake Placid, New York. That moment, while it pales in comparison to this one, also inspired in us a sense of the possible, at a time when so much seemed hopeless.  

Obama's election is certainly not a panacea for all that ails us. He faces the toughest set of challenges of any incoming president in recent memory. And with the economy in serious trouble, President Obama surely won't be able to deliver everything that Candidate Obama has promised during the campaign. He will never be able to successfully prosecute two wars, reduce our dependence upon fossil fuels, expand health care and help restore our economic strength without support from other leaders of all ideological and political stripes, as well as from each and every citizen. 

Obama acknowledged this difficult fact during his victory speech last night. So did his opponent, Senator John McCain, in his gracious concession address. Leaving aside for a moment the mystery of where the Republicans had been hiding that John McCain for the past several months, these words from both men were quite encouraging to hear. Our new president-elect, hopefully, is indicating that he will not be an ideologue or a permanent campaigner but rather a problem solver — one who needs help from every American to tackle our truly formidable challenges. And the leader of the defeated Republicans invoked the spirit of sensible, bipartisan cooperation that he so valiantly stood for before lurching to the right to win his party's nomination. 

We, too, must embrace this spirit. Let the healing begin. 

Why I Vote

Below is an essay I wrote several months ago, during the primary races, to accompany a donation to the Obama campaign. I thought it appropriate to share on Election Day. Even though it supports a particular candidate, I think it also delivers a message that might resonate with all citizens, regardless of who they cast their ballots for. Don't forget to vote!

--------------------------------------------------

I vote.

I vote regularly, almost religiously. I vote in cutthroat presidential battles as well as in boring, uncontested plebiscites for the local board of education.

Too often I do so while holding my nose.

For most of my adult life I’ve carefully guarded my undeclared voter-registration status and bemoaned the bitterly partisan nature of our politics. Why, I’ve long wondered, are so many elected officials more concerned with winning arguments — on getting and staying elected — than they are with solving our problems?

A big part of the answer to that question, I have theorized, is that so many private citizens are similarly obsessed — perhaps the cumulative effect of so many years of The McLaughlin Group, Crossfire, Limbaugh, The New York Post, the Drudge Report, Dan Abrams and Air America pounding a once-engaged citizenry into knee-jerk know-nothingism. Another big reason is that so many Americans could completely care less. Some have been so turned off by our infantile politics as to completely tune it out; Others are too busy trying to make ends meet and content with simpler pastimes like reality TV, Page Six and Us Weekly. The result: most Americans don’t bother to vote. And we are left with the candidates — and the leadership — that we deserve.

So when I find myself in the ballot box, increasingly it’s a dutiful exercise, not something I’m excited about or proud of. I vote for Democrats on my town council and board of education because Republicans dominate those bodies and because most people where I live are so reflexively anti-Democrat as to blindly disregard good public-policy ideas just because Republicans didn’t invent them. Conversely, I vote for Republicans to serve in the county government, which is in the stranglehold of a corrupt, wasteful Democratic machine that makes me pay more in property taxes than I rightly should so that it can buy votes and campaign contributions with government jobs and contracts. In both cases, I know that the candidates I support will lose, and lose big.

I know that my state and federal legislative districts, like so many throughout the country, are feats of gerrymandering worthy of Rube Goldberg, producing seats so safely in the column of one party that they render meaningless the spirit of free and fair elections. I know that races for statewide and federal offices have become made-for-TV battles of the substance-free sound bite. I know that a class of truly reprehensible human beings will function as sometimes-anonymous surrogates who will say, write, mail and post on the internet false and unfair statements about their opponents that the candidates themselves would never deign to utter in public. I know that in these campaigns there will be generous doses of “gotcha” quotes dredged up, liberated from all context and leaked to the press by opposition research teams. I know that there will be fliers left underneath windshield wipers in Wal-Mart parking lots intimating that candidates are somehow of the wrong race, religion or sexuality for a particular segment of voters.

I know that these are the malodorous byproducts of what has come to be known as the Permanent Campaign. From my vantage point, as someone who came of age during the 1990s, the Permanent Campaign is a creation of Bill and Hillary Clinton and those who have supported their political careers. I know that’s not completely true in the purest sense; Nixon and his ilk practiced dirty tricks, to be sure. And as a student of history I know that the Jacksonian era was marked by intense partisanship and appeals by politicians to the basest voter impulses. But even if the Clintons didn’t create the Permanent Campaign, they certainly reinvented it for the Information Age. You were either with them or you were against them.

I voted for Bill Clinton twice — the first time with youthful exuberance and the second with more than a little skepticism. During this time I also took note of Clinton Hatred, a passion that so infected Republicans that it impaired their ability to serve the public as elected officials and contribute to our democracy as citizens. The poisoned well of our politics grew more toxic still with the controversy over the election of 2000. And now that we can view the Bush-Cheney administration in hindsight it is clear that it has taken the Permanent Campaign to a new, more perfect and damaging level.

Our leaders have spent nearly two decades choosing the Permanent Campaign over devoting their considerable talents to solving the nation’s problems. During that same time many of our citizens have preferred scoring points and landing insults, in cocktail-party and blog arguments about politics, over finding ways to heal our collective ills. Or they simply haven’t been paying attention. As a result, our problems have grown worse.

Now the nation confronts war without end, recklessly and incompetently prosecuted; an economic crisis the likes of which have not been seen in more than a generation; a world that once revered the United States now openly hostile to it; the real danger that segments of our society are becoming so economically and socially disenfranchised that they will revolt against the established order; the list of maladies goes on. These are big problems getting bigger for the neglect of our leaders. It makes me sad. I often blame myself as much as I find fault in others, thinking that I should be a more engaged citizen. But work, family and fatigue too often stand in the way of that ideal path.

I know that one person cannot change all of this. Not one candidate — even one running for president — and surely not just one voter. But I’m encouraged that Senator Obama has chosen to say publicly some of the things that I’ve been thinking as a disgruntled but patriotic American all these years and to make changing this state of affairs so central to his campaign. Make no mistake: I’m still skeptical. It’s certainly convenient that a campaign focused on such ideals differentiates Senator Obama from his chief rival, who so embodies the bitterly divided politics of the past two decades. But the more I see, the more I learn, the more I believe that he’s sincere. Maybe not 100% sincere about every single thing, but as sincere as our political environment permits a presidential candidate to be. I read his memoir, Dreams From My Father, and am heartened that for the first time in my memory we might have a president who is capable of serious introspection and is not completely captive to an elephantine ego.

For all the reasons I’ve laid out in this too-preachy diatribe of an essay, it is not easy in America today for such a person to become president. And that is precisely why I want Senator Obama living in the White House. I know that I do not, and will not, agree with everything he believes in, and that I’ll object to some of the things he does in office should he win the presidency. But I believe that he will listen. He will listen to me and to the rest of the American people, as well as to his peers of all ideological stripes in Washington and throughout the world. And he will strive with us to solve our problems rather than divide us for politics’ sake while our democracy — and indeed, the world — becomes sicker.

That is why I support Senator Obama.

That is why I vote.

What is Palin Hiding?

Just one day before voters have to make up their minds about whether to elect her to the second-highest office in the land, Sarah Palin has still not made public her medical records, according to CNN. 

The other three major-party candidates (McCain, Obama and Biden) released medical records to the public long ago. Palin's campaign has said it would make the records available before election day. They have less than 24 hours left. Even if they make good on that promise between now and midnight, they've done a disservice to all voters by waiting so long. That's especially true when you consider that as much as one-third of the electorate has already cast ballots under early voting programs. 

Is there any good reason why Palin isn't coming clean with voters about her health? I can't think of one.

Former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis famously said that "sunlight is the best disinfectant." That principle lies behind much disclosure-based regulation in this country, such as the required dissemination of financial statements by public companies. The idea is that requiring disclosure deters bad behavior, or at least prevents bad actors from keeping their misdeeds secret. 

Governor Palin's refusal to release her medical records begs one very big question: What is she hiding? And If there's nothing to hide, why not make the records public? If McCain and Palin win tomorrow, when will we find out about her health? On inauguration day? When she runs for president in 2012? Sometime after then? Never? Okay, that's seven questions, but you get the point. 

Hopefully there are no skeletons in her medical closet, but her failure to disclose her records understandably has minds running wild, especially in light of Palin's well-documented adventures in hands-laying, tongues-speaking and general religious kookery:

Is there some mental health issue we don't know about, and that the campaign would prefer we never know about?

Failing to make such a basic disclosure — every candidate for President and Vice President has done so for as long as I can remember — evidences a fundamental, and quite loathsome, disdain on Governor Palin's part for the principle that the people are sovereign in the United States of America. 

Dick Cheney would be proud. 

Are You Ready To Vote?

Many of us are anxiously counting down to Election Day — so much so that about 1/3 of us may actually vote prior to Tuesday, according to recent press reports. For those of us who have yet to cast our ballots, it's important to make sure we consider not only the presidential candidates but also any state and local contests on which we have the privilege to weigh in. 

I urge everyone to take a look at their sample ballots, familiarize themselves with all candidates and public questions or referenda so that they may make educated decisions. In the Internet era it's easier than ever to do this. You can, for example, check on the voting records of members of the US Congress here. Since most congressional incumbents run for re-election this should be a useful tool for many of us. You can also check your local newspapers and websites for their takes on and explanations of public questions and referenda. 

I also urge everyone to refrain from simply voting party lines and consider each of the candidates on their individual merits. I, for example, am likely to split my ticket by voting for Republicans on the county level because I believe that the local Democratic machine is wasteful and takes its power for granted. The importance of considering each race on its own is even more true on the municipal level, where the difference between, say, a Republican in Congress or the White House and a Republican on your town or city council can be huge. 

We still have three full days left. Let's use them wisely. 

The Forgotten Branch of Government

With everyone so focused on the presidential race and, secondarily, on whether Democrats will expand their majorities in Congress, today's New York Times story on the transformation of the federal judiciary is worth a read for citizens everywhere. 

We often forget that we have three branches of government that are designed to check and balance one another. The presidency and Congress get most of what little media attention is devoted to public affairs outside of campaign season. But the judiciary can be just as powerful. We see this in such pivotal Supreme Court decisions as Bush v. Gore, Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford and Marbury v. Madison. And, as the Times story points out, we also see it in the influence of the federal appeals courts, which increasingly decide many matters critical to American society because the Supreme Court is reviewing fewer lower-court decisions. 

This is very important in the context of the race for the White House, as the president appoints federal appeals-court judges. Bill Clinton appointed 65. George W. Bush has appointed 61. According to the Times story, the combined appointments of Republican presidents since 1980 — particularly those of the last eight years — have contributed to a massive rightward shift in the composition of the federal judiciary and, as a result, of its interpretation of the law.

Whether you agree with such a shift or not is almost immaterial here. My point is that the judiciary matters, even though we think about it and hear about it very little. We need to make sure we are aware of its important decisions as well as changes in its composition, and keep in mind that in selecting a president we also help determine the nature of the judiciary branch — both the Supreme Court and the federal appeals courts. 

Abuse of Power

Apart from being very busy the last few days, I've also been at a bit of a loss regarding what to write about on Citizen. The presidential campaign has given us no shortage of truly amazing misbehavior and hypocrisy, but I feel like I've beaten up on the McCain campaign so much that pointing out every last brazen transgression would be piling on (not to mention exhausting). So I'm thankful to a reader in the great state of Massachusetts for passing along some news that is simultaneously amusing and depressing, and therefore utterly comment-worthy:

A Massachusetts state senator has been arrested for allegedly accepting $23,500 in bribes from constituents and others with business before the legislature. The FBI has this poor soul on film stuffing $100 bills into her bra after a surreptitious meeting with a confidential informant. Read the Boston Globe story, and see the picture, here. 

What I found most amusing were the reader comments that followed the Globe article, particularly one that states that the accused lawmaker, Diane Wilkerson, first ran for her seat representing Boston's Roxbury neighborhood as a proponent of reforming corrupt government. I've seen this movie far too often living in New Jersey, aka the government corruption capital of North America (though I have to admit Alaska is giving us a run for our money lately). Especially in cities, preaching "reform" is usually just a way for one scoundrel to replace another at the controls of the great government graft machine. Even those who sincerely want to eliminate corruption and abuse of power usually fall victim to the same irresistible tactics — chiefly, handing out contracts and jobs to contributors and supporters instead of to the most qualified recipients — once they get into office and face re-election. 

I hate to sound like a cracked vinyl disc here, but the only thing that can eliminate graft, corruption and abuse of power by our elected representatives (or at least keep it to a minimum) is the steady, consistent application of scrutiny and electoral power by ordinary citizens. So pay attention out there, and be on the lookout for Benjamin Franklin peeking out of your local state senator's blouse.  

Lunch or Lipitor?

Americans will likely consume fewer prescription drugs this year than they did in 2007, the first yearly decline in more than a decade, according to the lead story in today's New York Times. 

Several factors are likely behind the highly unusual decline, including a reaction to recent safety issues with some prescription drugs that may be making Americans more reluctant to treat every malady or discomfort with chemicals when other remedies are available. But the primary reason, according to the authors of the study on which the article is based and the Times' interviews with citizens, is that the deepening recession is increasingly forcing Americans of modest means "to choose between gas, meals and medication," as one doctor put it. 

Before I comment further on this development, I think it's important to contrast this lamentable reality with the notion, advanced by an anonymous commenter on this blog two days ago, that "America since 1980 has been a much better place for every American compared to the years before." Leaving aside the absurd presumptuousness of this assertion (how could any of us deign to know just how well or badly "every American" has fared in the past quarter-century?!), the recent deterioration of health care coverage surely refutes such a rose-colored, blanket statement.  

But far more importantly, the situation outlined in today's headlines also underscores that our health care system is simply not delivering the proper treatment to everyone who needs it. 

I don't have a solution to this problem (if any readers have ideas, I would love to hear them). But both candidates for president purport to have one. Trouble is, as another Times story points out today, both of them are irresponsibly misleading citizens about their plans — especially regarding how many uninsured they'd cover and how much it would cost to do so. 

True, these are details that may be impossible to pin down before the election ends and the process of piloting health-care reform legislation through Congress begins. As the Times piece correctly points out, this is because of the black-and-white nature of modern campaigning as well as the inability of economists to predict accurately how human beings will respond to dramatically changed rules and incentives. 

But someone will win the election, and subsequently try to implement his plan. At that point we need to demand clarity about just what we're getting into. The risks are great. On one hand we risk failing to do enough to address a growing problem that has a multiplier effect on our economy. People with inadequate health care get sicker, further straining the system and raising costs for everyone. Sick employees don't show up for work, reducing efficiency and raising costs for employers. And soaring insurance costs hurt American companies' ability to provide jobs and compete with global rivals. On the other hand we risk doing too much and saddling the system with inefficient, government bureaucracy, potentially leading to the long wait periods and de-facto rationing of care we see in single-payer systems like Canada's. 

Like many of the challenges we face, health care is a complex problem that is not given to the tidy, partisan sound-bite solutions that have become the coin of today's political realm. That's why we all need to be involved. Your representatives in Congress will vote on any plan that either McCain or Obama tries to pass. Pay attention to the details when that time comes and make your voice heard. 

Exhuming McCarthy

"Let us not assassinate this lad further, Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?"

--Joseph Welch, special counsel to the US Army, to US Senator Joseph McCarthy

June 9, 1954

These words marked the beginning of the end of McCarthyism, a four-year reign of terror over reason and decency by Joseph McCarthy, a US Senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy reprehensibly and relentlessly exploited post-World War II worries about the spread of communism to fuel his unquenchable political ambition. 

Just as the Cold War was getting under way, McCarthy claimed he had proof that dozens, perhaps even hundreds, of communists had infiltrated the highest levels of the US government — the Truman White House, the State Department and even the Army. He never provided that proof, but he did use his Senate subpoena powers to call hundreds of witnesses to testify before his Senate subcommittee, accusing them of communist party membership, support or ties. Local and national newspapers gave widespread publicity to his unsubstantiated accusations. 

The frenzy climaxed in the spring of 1954, during three months of hearings convened to investigate a dispute between McCarthy and the Army. The Senator accused the Army of harboring communists. The Army fought back, charging that McCarthy and his chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had inappropriately pressured the Army for preferential treatment of G. David Schine, an army private who was a former McCarthy staffer and a close friend of Cohn's. 

The above quote from Welch, simply read on a page or a computer screen without the proper context, does not seem particularly devastating. But his words summoned the patriotic anger that had been building in millions of country-loving Americans throughout McCarthy's ugly rise. The Army-McCarthy hearings occurred just as television was being adopted, and was one of the first major political news events to be broadcast live into our living rooms. When citizens saw McCarthy in all his misanthropic, bullying yet impotent self-glory, they did not like what they saw. In defending a witness from further browbeating, Welch said to McCarthy's face what millions of Americans had been too afraid to say out loud for too long. Six months later the Senate voted by a 2/3 majority to censure McCarthy. Less than two and a half years later he died of complications from alcoholism, at the age of 48.

The real sin of all this, aside from the tragedy of his life, is that the beginning of the end of his "ism" took so long to arrive. Dozens of wrongfully accused citizens had careers and lives ruined by McCarthy's unsubstantiated accusations, and many more lived in fear of the same fate. 

What does this have to do with anything? Well, a member of Congress on Friday called for a return to McCarthy-era witch hunts and loyalty tests. In an interview with MSNBC's Chris Matthews, Michele Bachmann, a freshman congresswoman representing Minnesota's 6th district, said that she was "very concerned that [Obama] may have anti-American views" because "the people that Barack Obama has been associating with are anti-American, by and large." She even called on the news media to investigate other members of Congress "to find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Here's the video:

The good news is that we appear to have learned a valuable lesson from the dark period in our history that was McCarthyism. In the 48 hours following Bachmann's appearance on Matthews' Hardball, nearly 13,000 patriotic Americans showered Bachmann's re-election opponent, Elwyn Tinklenberg, with $640,000 in campaign contributions. And at this writing more than 52,000 citizens have signed a petition calling on Congress to censure Bachmann. 

This comes on the heels of a series of polls showing that the McCain-Palin campaign's overwhelming focus on misleading and hatemongering attacks against Senator Obama in recent weeks has seriously damaged the ticket's standing with American voters. 

Often I am troubled by the extent of apathy and gullibility that I see in many of my fellow citizens. But episodes like these — Welch's knockout blow against McCarthy, the electorate's repudiation of McCain-Palin's Napalm attacks and the nipping in the bud of Bachmann's neo-McCarthyism — restore my faith in the ultimate wisdom of the American people. Sometimes it takes us too long to get there, but usually we wind up in the right place. 

Shoeless Joe

Is anyone surprised that the real Joe "the Plumber" Wurzelbacher bears little resemblance to the mythological "Joe the Plumber" that John McCain attempted to wield as a desperate, gimmicky bludgeon during his debate Wednesday night against Barack Obama?

Turns out ol' Joe is not a licensed plumber, is in no position to buy the company he works for, makes about $40,000 a year and appears to be a registered Republican. He doesn't want the tax cut that Obama plans to give him, even though it would help him make good on his delinquent Ohio property tax bill, and — naturally — is a fan of Sarah Palin. Read all about it in the Toledo Blade — which, incidentally, is one of the country's best newspapers. 

While Joe doesn't appear to have been an outright Republican plant, as my gut told me yesterday might have been the case, the dirty tricksters in McCain's campaign certainly glommed on to him, embellished his story and thought no one would call them on it. These guys and gals have been purveying pitiful prevarication so successfully for so long that they're getting sloppy and complacent. They're not getting away with it anymore. And that's a good thing for citizens everywhere. 

Plumbing the Depths of Discomfort

I have to say I was pleasantly surprised at the quality of last night's debate. The moderator, Bob Schieffer, didn't exactly adhere to my wish list for debate questions, but I thought he did a good job of asking questions that gave the candidates some room to roam. (Brief aside: How, how, how could CBS have replaced this very competent, accomplished, serious journalist with Katie Couric?) The ground rules of this session — each candidate gave a 2-minute response to a question, followed by back-and-forth discussion — were far better than the first two, permitting the candidates to engage and respond to one another. 

I'm not going to waste any time on trying to spin who "won" or "lost" the debate. But I did want to share a couple of thoughts. 

First, in his attacks on Obama, McCain unfortunately (yet predictably) relied too often on statements that soiled the truth like it was a dirty diaper. 

Some examples:

He invoked "Joe the Plumber" to mischaracterize Obama's tax plan, which, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, would reduce the average tax bill for those with incomes of less than $227,000 annually and levy an average of just $12 in extra taxes on those with incomes between $227,000 and $603,000. So, if Joe the Plumber buys the business he's working for and it turns an annual profit of less than $603,000, his taxes in all likelihood will either fall or remain flat. His income, however, will rise substantially. In other words, he'll be far better off. McCain made it seem as if Obama would cut off America's small businesses — and the many jobs they create — at the knees. It's a lie. McCain's transparent gimmick here makes me wonder exactly who Joe the Plumber is and how he wound up asking questions at an Obama rally in Ohio. That may sound paranoid, but the recent history of slimy Republican campaign tactics gives me plenty of reason to be. 

Even worse was McCain's reference to abortion-related votes cast by Obama during his tenure in the Illinois state senate. McCain intimated during the debate that Obama had voted to decline funding for infants born as a result of failed abortion procedures, and against a measure that would have limited late-term abortions. Fortunately, Obama did a better job of counteracting this canard. He noted that he opposes late-term abortions with an exception for the health of the mother, and that the Illinois bill did not contain such an exception. Obama also explained, calmly and succinctly, that he only voted against the first measure because Illinois already had a law on the books that provided the same care for these infants — and, more importantly, because the language regarding this neonatal care was attached to a broader bill that attempted to roll back Roe v. Wade, a ruling that he supports. In short, the bill was "gotcha" politics at its worst. Anti-abortion legislators sponsored it specifically because they knew their pro-choice colleagues would vote against it, opening them to exactly the kind of irresponsible, intelligence-insulting, truth-stretching attack that McCain embraced last night. 

And this brings me to my second thought about last night's debate. Almost all I could think about while watching it and immediately thereafter was just how uncomfortable McCain looked. He appears agitated, annoyed and angry — to such an extreme magnitude that I question why he's even putting himself through the exercise of running for president. As I've mentioned before, this is not the John McCain we knew during the 1990s — the genial, bipartisan truth teller that the media and independent voters fell in love with. He just doesn't look comfortable in his own skin. 

A recent article in Rolling Stone suggests that McCain's Maverick persona was entirely fabricated — a disguise he stepped into following his entanglement in the Keating Five scandal, solely for the purpose of furthering his blind ambition. I'm not sure I buy that argument completely. But having watched the McCain metamorphosis reach its ugly apex these last few weeks, I do question whether the McCain we're seeing now is the real McCain — a privileged Navy brat who angrily lashes about in a perpetually futile attempt to surpass the heroic legacies of his father and grandfather. Perhaps the biggest irony of the campaign is that last night and during the campaign's recent twists and turns he has come off as less presidential than Obama, whom McCain and his race-baiting, hate-driven surrogates have repeatedly tried to cast as somehow too foreign and untested to occupy the Oval Office. 

What do you think?

Questions That Won't Be Asked Tonight

Looking forward to tonight's debate, I thought about what questions I would ask if I were Bob Schieffer, the moderator. Here are a few that popped into my head, in no particular order:

• Please explain why you believe you are prepared and qualified to be president of the United States.

• Please name the three highest priorities you'd bring into office.

• What can we expect to see in the first 100 days of your presidency? What policy objectives would you target, and how?

• What will be your approach to appointing Supreme Court justices should you have the opportunity to do so as president?

• How did our financial system wind up in such dire straits, and what can we learn from this experience that will help us prevent it from reoccurring?

• Given the opportunity, what would you change about the way we go about electing a president?

• What can private citizens do to help solve the vast array of serious problems our nation faces?

• What do you think the role of the vice president should be?

• Seven years after 9/11, how big of a threat is posed to the US by terrorists, and how would you act to counteract that threat?

• What's your view regarding whether, when and how to use military force to achieve US objectives?

Most of these questions probably won't be asked tonight. I think Schieffer will do a reasonably good job, but he's likely to stick to the same script that most moderators use: asking for each candidate's position on an exhaustive list of issues while throwing in a few questions aimed at addressing flash points in the campaign, such as whether Obama is qualified enough, McCain's guilt-by-association attacks or whether the troop surge in Iraq was a success. This approach is flawed, but probably necessary because of the ridiculously short time alloted for candidate answers. 

A far better way to structure debates would be for the moderator to ask a small number of open-ended, prepared questions, like the ones listed above. Instead of asking candidates to articulate their positions on Iraq or Afghanistan, ask them their views on using military force or how they'd address the threat of terrorism. That would give candidates significantly more options about how to answer, and what they choose to talk about — and not talk about — would tell us a lot more about what kind of leaders they are and how they'd govern. Follow-up questions could ask candidates to be more specific about any vague responses, as well as drill down further into anything new or interesting a candidate may say in his initial answer. 

These types of questions might actually require that the candidates think — and tell us what they think — instead of listening for key words in the question ("health care," "Iraq," "taxes") and summoning their endlessly rehearsed talking points on that issue. 

Anyway, I hope everyone watches tonight, and that Schieffer proves me wrong. 

Britney Spears Endorses McCain

Earlier today I was thinking about what it meant that Citizen's traffic roughly doubled on the day last week that I posted about Madonna. A few minutes later I found the answer, in Bob Herbert's column in today's Times.  

The column lists a litany of American woes that any developed nation should be ashamed of: our youth's subpar math skills; a dangerously decrepit infrastructure, which contributed to the destruction of New Orleans three years ago and the deaths last year of 13 motorists when a bridge collapsed during rush hour in Minneapolis; and insufficient funding for something as basic as safe drinking water for our people. 

Herbert could have added many more items to his shame list, but he has but one column, not the whole newspaper. And his larger point is far more important than being comprehensive in his detailing of our many problems. 

All of these problems have a common contributing factor: an unengaged citizenry. As I've argued before, we, the people are to blame for our worst problems, not our politicians. That's because we fail to demand better solutions from our leaders. Why? We're more concerned with reality TV, celebrity hijinks and all manner of other plaque that is clogging the arteries of our information superhighway. When we do pay attention to public affairs our attention is too often directed at pointing fingers and attacking those with whom we disagree, and too infrequently channeled to thinking about problems and working toward solutions. Herbert points a finger at the media for dwelling too much on all of this nonsense. What he doesn't say is that the media are in business to make money, and unless viewers and readers demonstrate more discerning appetites, they are going to continue to be fed spam in a can for breakfast, lunch and dinner. 

Our system of government is not working properly -- not because it is poorly designed, but because we are not doing our part. And to contribute properly, we needn't make Herculean efforts. Simply keeping up on public affairs, thinking critically, forming opinions, voting and perhaps engaging one another and our elected representatives now and then when we feel passionately about a particular issue, is enough. But so many of us fail to meet even those minimal requirements of basic citizenship. Tens of millions of us fail to even exercise our right to vote. So instead of trying to solve our problems and talk to us like reasonable adults, politicians relentlessly pursue their own interests over ours and choose to communicate with us by appearing on The View, Letterman, Leno and Oprah, and by spending billions on 30-second, intelligence-insulting TV attack ads.

Herbert's column cites a 1985 book by Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death. I'd never heard of it before but Herbert's reference — which implies that Postman thought our fascination with entertainment at the expense of citizenship was damaging our republic — has me intrigued enough that I'll probably buy a copy and read it.  

So, in case you hadn't figured it out by now, I'm basically calling you all simpletons who care more about Madonna — or a potential McCain endorsement by Britney, which, contrary to my misleading title, has not happened (but let's see how Citizen's traffic responds to that subject line...) — than about the health of our democracy. Well, not really. We — this blogger included — all succumb at times to the information age's shallower amusements. The whole reason this blog exists is to provide a forum where we can help each other to overcome those temptations, or at least minimize them, so that we can be the citizens our founders intended us to be. 

Or, as Jeff Tweedy said:

I'll side with you

If you side with me 

Associated Nonsense

The McCain campaign, falling further behind by the minute, is escalating its attacks on Senator Obama's "associations." McCain's argument here is that Obama has associated with people who are hostile to the United States or hold otherwise objectionable views, and thus is somehow guilty of the same misdeeds and hostile attitudes.

I happen to think the argument is specious. But we are blessed to live in a free country. So, let's say you believe it. It follows that McCain and Palin should be subject to the same kind of examination and guilt by association. So, what about Palin's connections to the Alaska Independence Party, which has advocated violent secession from the United States? Here's a quick rundown: 

• Palin and her husband were once members of the party, whose founder, Joe Vogler, has said he hates the US government and in 1983 convinced the government of Iran to use its United Nations membership to give him a forum for urging the UN to support Alaska's secession from the US. Todd Palin belonged to the AIP for seven years. 

• Palin helped engineer her election as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, through the support of a local member of the AIP whose nickname around town was "Black Helicopter Steve" because of the cache of weapons he kept to stave off U.S. troops, whom he was convinced would strike at any moment to impose the dreaded "New World Order." 

• After being elected Mayor, Palin appointed Black Helicopter Steve to the city council. 

• As a gubernatorial candidate in 2006, Palin appeared at the AIP state convention.

• Palin ended a videotaped address to the AIP earlier this year by saying "keep up the good work, and God bless you." 

Now let's turn to some of Senator McCain's associations. In 1987 he tried to persuade federal regulators to lay off his pal Charles Keating, head of Lincoln Savings and Loan, which collapsed two years later amid a tsunami of bad loans, costing taxpayers $3 billion, bankrupting untold widows and orphans and helping trigger the wider savings-and-loan bailout that cost you and me $125 billion.

Senator McNasty also served on the board of the US Council for World Freedom. One of this group's particularly paranoid anti-Semitic members in 1985 accused Jews of milking the Holocaust for sympathy and has suggested that a small coterie of Jewish financiers and business leaders control the entire world. 

The McCain-Palin ticket's associations arguably make them look a lot more anti-American than do Obama's. 

To me their rhetoric feels a lot like people who stridently oppose keeping abortion legal because of their "respect for life" yet feel no compunction whatsoever at extinguishing life via the death penalty or preemptively invading a sovereign nation that did us no harm and killing tens of thousands of its citizens. They're not pro-life, they're pro-some-lives-over-other-lives. McCain and Palin are being just as hypocritical by dwelling almost constantly in their campaign appearances on the supposed ghosts in Obama's attic. Somewhere George Orwell is having a good chuckle.  

I can't wait to see what happens if McCain is man enough to bring up all this nonsense in Wednesday's debate. 

An Open Letter to Madonna

Citizen

http://cit-i-zen.blogspot.com

October 9, 2008

Madonna Louise Ciccone-Ritchie

Somewhere in the UK

Or on tour in America

via the Internets

Dear Ms. Ciccone-Ritchie,

I read with dismay today about your recent on-stage diatribe, in which you used an extremely vulgar word to identify Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin. In the same article, I learned that you also recently compared Senator John McCain, the GOP presidential candidate, to Adolf Hitler.  

This is not easy to say. I know that a little piece of you dies for every moment you are not the center of global attention, and that it's hard for a onetime megacelebrity to watch the world pass her by, rendering her irrelevant despite failed attempt after failed attempt to maintain her clutch on notoriety. I have Jesse Jackson's cell number if you want someone to empathize with.  

But here is the truth: you are not helping. In fact, you're hurting the cause you seek to bolster with your hateful, ignorant words. In the real world, which you ceased to inhabit sometime around 1984, citizens do not look to entertainers for political wisdom. And there's good reason for that: for the most part they are wholly unqualified to be spouting off publicly about world affairs, despite the irresistible urge that must come from people constantly sticking microphones and tape recorders in their faces. 

Occasionally celebrities can devote themselves to public affairs enough to be regarded as voices of reason and even leaders. The late, great Paul Newman is one example. And, of course, Ronald Reagan parlayed his B-movie acting career into the presidency. But I feel bound to inform you, ma'am, that your quarter-century of doing little more than parading around in your underwear does not put you in this league. For you, publicly commenting on politics is about as laughable and desperate as the time you tried passing yourself off as a guitar playing singer-songwriter in the 90s, or that ridiculous British accent you've affected in the past few years.

So many of us wish you would stop. There are plenty more productive things you could be doing with your time and money. Take your kids on a nice vacation. Enjoy the English countryside. Meditate. Read books. Lecture about the significance of giant, metallic, cone-shaped bras to 20th Century feminism. If you simply can't relieve that creative itch, perhaps you could re-make that 80s film you did with Rosanna Arquette, but this time call it Desperately Seeking Anyone Who Will Pay Attention to Me.

Oh, yeah, and tell A-Rod no talking politics, either. 

Sincerely, 

Citizen

Will McCain and Palin Be Happy if Someone Hurts Obama?

I don't know where to begin today. 

Last night's debate isn't really worth commenting on. I think the candidates' performances speak for themselves. 

I'm really incensed about something else: the McCain/Palin campaign's utterly reprehensible stirring up of racial antagonism, general hatred and even talk of murdering Barack Obama. 

In my post yesterday I pointed out how the McCain campaign is resorting to irresponsible smears of Obama as a desperate, last-ditch attempt to salvage its vanishing election-day prospects. What I didn't know then was just how despicable the behavior that McCain and his running mate are prompting — and indeed, tolerating — on the part of their supporters. 

Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank's coverage of Palin's Monday rally in Florida reveals that supporters in the crowd reacted to her media-bashing by "hurl(ing) obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

Unfortunately, it gets worse. At another rally in Florida, Palin intimated that Obama thinks our troops in Afghanistan are nothing but baby killers — a blatant and irresponsible lie that elicited a cry of "treason!" from the audience. Here's the video:

Then there was McCain's refusal to correct a supporter who clearly answered the candidate's question — "Who is the real Barack Obama?" — by angrily shouting "A terrorist!" Here's that video:

And moving into chunks-welling-up-in-your-throat territory, Palin's wacko accusation that Obama's political career was launched by "domestic terrorist" Bill Ayres prompted one man in the audience to shout "Kill him!," according to the Washington Post. The Secret Service is now looking into that doozy. 

Is this how John McCain wants to inspire Americans and solve the litany of grave problems we face? Mudslinging is one thing, and to some extent an expected part of the dirty game that is politics. But tolerating such hateful, violent comments and behavior is beyond unacceptable. It's sad and shameful, but also dangerous. Every citizen with a brain and a heart should punish this conduct with extreme prejudice.  

Will John McCain and Sarah Palin be happy if someone hurts Obama? Is that their idea of patriotism? They should ask themselves those questions and think very hard about the answers, for their latest round of smears is clearly inciting that type of feeling in some supporters, and they are doing nothing to stop it from tragically spinning out of control. 

 

McCain: What's Missing?

OK, take a look at the video below from the September 26 presidential debate, and the various other photos here of Senator John McCain from the presidential campaign trail. Specifically, look closely at McCain and tell me what's unusual about his appearance. And be nice to Cindy. She's a recovering drug addict. 

  

Give up?

He doesn't wear a flag pin. 

Is he an Islamocommufascist terrorist? 

Do we know the REAL John McCain?

Can we risk putting such a man in the White House, as commander in chief of our noble troops that are in harm's way around the world?

Well, of course we can. John McCain loves his country. I know that and so do you. We may disagree on whether he's the best man for the job but his basic patriotism and desire to do right by his country and its citizens is not in question. 

My point here, as some of you probably have figured out by now, is that using paranoid innuendo to smear someone for what he wears or doesn't wear, how he looks or who he may have had tenuous associations with is no way to help citizens decide whether that person is qualified to lead us. As the McCain campaign recognizes that it appears headed for defeat on November 4 it has turned increasingly to irresponsible smears of Senator Barack Obama — from surrogates using his middle name to silly chain emails that keep repeating the same demonstrably false claims: that he is a Muslim who was sworn in to the Senate with his hand on the Koran and refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance or wear an American flag lapel pin. 

Serious citizens should recognize this trash for what it is, and demand better of our candidates.  

McCain and Obama: the Best America Has To Offer?

I was just reading an article in the Week In Review section of today's Times, about the changing role of the vice presidency, and was struck by the following passage:

The next president will face challenges probably not equaled since Franklin Roosevelt took the oath in 1933. Two wars, an economy in crisis, an energy emergency, destructive partisanship, frayed alliances overseas — all add up to a burden that will be tough for any new president to tackle alone.

It's hard to disagree with this sentiment, and it gets me to thinking:

Are these the best candidates America has to offer?

Each of the major-party presidential candidates has at least one serious deficiency. Most of the elections in my lifetime have also been contests between similarly imperfect candidates, but I can't help but feel that the problem is getting worse with time. The situation is particularly troubling now, with our nation facing a wider array of serious problems than at any time I can remember. And it's noone's fault but our own. As citizens we need to be more engaged in public affairs and demand better of our leaders. Until we do, we'll get the government we deserve.

What do you think?