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.