Last week the world witnessed a historic election in Great Britain. Following a tightly fought campaign, the country emerged not only with its youngest Prime Minister in two hundred years and its first coalition government in sixty years, but it also with the first Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition in its history.
This change didn’t come about easily. The elections didn’t give any party a clear majority, leaving the parties to hash out a coalition government. Several tense days of backroom negotiations followed. Eventually, the Liberal Democrats threw their lot in with Conservatives—for a hefty price. Nick Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, wrangled the position of Deputy Prime Minister, and six other Liberal Democrats secured ministerial posts in the new government.
Equally importantly, the Lib Dems secured a Conservative promise to put an important piece of election reform before the voters—a proposal to switch from first-past-the-post voting to an alternative vote system where voters rank their nominee preference (known in the U.S. as an instant run off system). The change could have serious consequences—according to some estimates the Liberal Democrats would have picked up fifty more seats with the alternative vote. Lib Dems have argued that in the first-past-the-post system a third party vote is often thrown away—something that third parties in the U.S. can surely sympathize with. But why has bringing this relatively straightforward issue before the voters been so difficult? The fact that Lib Dems could only secure the promise for a referendum now, after years of effort, when they were essentially placed in the role of kingmakers, gives some indication of how hard it can be to bring about electoral reform even in advanced democracies.
The last truly tumultuous election in the U.S. occurred in 2000. But for all the anger and disappointment that election caused, the 2000 election led to very little discussion, much less change, in our electoral process. Indeed, there seems to be an unnatural allergy to even discussing alterations. For example, one of the last major third parties movements in the U.S., the Green Party, was blamed for Democrat’s loss of the Presidential election in 2000. The fact that the Green Party won millions of votes in Florida, and that the Democratic Party won many millions more than that, however, didn’t lead to a discussion of why Florida’s electoral votes should all go to the Republican candidate. Similarly, even though the Electoral College gave the Presidency to George Bush despite the fact that Al Gore won the popular vote, no movement materialized to remove that antiquated mechanism. And anger at the Supreme Court didn’t lead to a discussion of term limits for Supreme Court justices or of the merits of judicial review of non-constitutional questions.
A more immediately relevant example is the issue of redistricting. Following the 2010 Census the governing party in many states will have the chance to redraw electoral district lines. In theory, the lines should be redrawn to reflect changes in population, but the reality of redistricting—so long accepted now as to be taken for granted—is that it gives the ruling party the opportunity to draw lines around its constituency. It is the democratic process backwards: The representatives are choosing their constituency.
While the newspaper editor who coined the term “gerrymandering” should receive great credit for cleverness, he did no favor for democracy. The term allows too many people, including those who know better, to think of the practice as an excusable eccentricity; a benign oddity of the U.S. system. In truth, the world would be a better place if the gerrymander were extinct. Incumbents should not be able to tailor their districts to ensure their reelection. How can an election be free and fair when one side is choosing who votes?
This failure to discuss inadequacies in our electoral processes is particularly odd for a country that takes such pride in its democracy, and that exports it so vigorously. Indeed, it is in the best of American traditions to innovate, to take risks, and to continually pursue perfection. These attributes are needed as much, if not more, in the realm of governance than business. Yet it is there that they are almost completely lacking. The U.S. would be much better off if we, like our cousins the British, worked to develop a resistance to this highly peculiar, and insidious, allergy.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
“Memorial Day”
By its nature, Memorial Day is solemn. Many Americans spent this past Memorial Day at cemeteries, visiting those they knew or didn’t know, who fought and died in America’s wars. Surprisingly, this somber practice is currently at the heart of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The case involves Albert Snyder, the father Marine Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, who was killed in Iraq, and the Westboro Baptist Church. The Westboro Baptist Church has made a name for itself over the years by protesting at military funerals and it is now seeking formal protection the practice. The case requires a balancing of the father’ right to privacy and the solemnity of his son’s burial against the Westboro Baptist Church’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression. The Federal District Court for Maryland ruled for Mr. Snyder, but the Court of Appeals reversed.
The Westboro Baptist Church‘s protests are not about Mr. Snyder’s son per se. To the Westboro Baptist Church, all the tragedies that the U.S. suffers, from hurricanes to tornadoes to the deaths of soldiers, are the result of what they take to be America’s permissive attitude toward homosexuality. America is the new Gomorrah. Protesting at soldier’s funerals is only a ploy to get them attention beyond what their message or numbers merit. Although they keep up a busy schedule, most of their protests only include a few church members flown in from their home church in Kansas.
Knowing this hardly makes the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions more forgivable. It takes a fearsome devotion to the First Amendment to defend allowing a group like Westboro Baptist Church to broadcast their bizarre take on world affairs. In many other parts of the world even considering it would be unthinkable. In Germany, and in many countries in Europe, Holocaust Denial is illegal. In Britain, libel laws are so loose that one can be prosecuted for something said in another country. The vigour with which we defend freedom of speech in the U.S. is unique.
There are limitations, of course. You can’t yell “Fire” during a packed showing of “Avatar,” and if you harangue someone viciously enough to get slugged, the First Amendment won’t protect you. But how many other countries in the world would allow a group of Nazi’s march through a town with a large population of Jews, as we did in Skokie, Illinois? Not very many. So the question we have to ask each other is: Is this type of Exceptionalism really in our best interest?
But looking at the question this way makes it clear that the problem isn’t the First Amendment at all. While it’s true that the First Amendment allows the Westboro Baptist Church to carry out its protests, it isn’t the reason they are successful. The Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a civil liberties organization—they protest at soldier’s funerals because they know it will attract a large amount of news coverage. And it is not the First Amendment that gives them that platform—it is us. If we failed to pay attention, the Westboro Baptist Church would seek ways to get their message out. Could we collectively turn away? There’s good reason for doubt. Newspapers, television stations and websites, like any good businesses, will always find room to publish stories that sell, and outrage has a good track record for sales.
It is worth trying, however, if only because the alternative is so unappealing. Whether the First Amendment serves our interests well or poorly, we shouldn’t carve it up for fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Where would it end? After all, a group that is willing to protest at funerals would probably be willing to engage in other shocking behavior to get attention. Maybe mass flag burnings? Should we write that out of the First Amendment as well?
Nothing good can come by letting fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church rewrite our First Amendment jurisprudence. Whether the freedom of speech as it is practiced in the United States is superior to its treatment in the rest of the world is up for debate. If we should ever wish to change our stance, however, we should make sure we are doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.
The Westboro Baptist Church‘s protests are not about Mr. Snyder’s son per se. To the Westboro Baptist Church, all the tragedies that the U.S. suffers, from hurricanes to tornadoes to the deaths of soldiers, are the result of what they take to be America’s permissive attitude toward homosexuality. America is the new Gomorrah. Protesting at soldier’s funerals is only a ploy to get them attention beyond what their message or numbers merit. Although they keep up a busy schedule, most of their protests only include a few church members flown in from their home church in Kansas.
Knowing this hardly makes the Westboro Baptist Church’s actions more forgivable. It takes a fearsome devotion to the First Amendment to defend allowing a group like Westboro Baptist Church to broadcast their bizarre take on world affairs. In many other parts of the world even considering it would be unthinkable. In Germany, and in many countries in Europe, Holocaust Denial is illegal. In Britain, libel laws are so loose that one can be prosecuted for something said in another country. The vigour with which we defend freedom of speech in the U.S. is unique.
There are limitations, of course. You can’t yell “Fire” during a packed showing of “Avatar,” and if you harangue someone viciously enough to get slugged, the First Amendment won’t protect you. But how many other countries in the world would allow a group of Nazi’s march through a town with a large population of Jews, as we did in Skokie, Illinois? Not very many. So the question we have to ask each other is: Is this type of Exceptionalism really in our best interest?
But looking at the question this way makes it clear that the problem isn’t the First Amendment at all. While it’s true that the First Amendment allows the Westboro Baptist Church to carry out its protests, it isn’t the reason they are successful. The Westboro Baptist Church isn’t a civil liberties organization—they protest at soldier’s funerals because they know it will attract a large amount of news coverage. And it is not the First Amendment that gives them that platform—it is us. If we failed to pay attention, the Westboro Baptist Church would seek ways to get their message out. Could we collectively turn away? There’s good reason for doubt. Newspapers, television stations and websites, like any good businesses, will always find room to publish stories that sell, and outrage has a good track record for sales.
It is worth trying, however, if only because the alternative is so unappealing. Whether the First Amendment serves our interests well or poorly, we shouldn’t carve it up for fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church. Where would it end? After all, a group that is willing to protest at funerals would probably be willing to engage in other shocking behavior to get attention. Maybe mass flag burnings? Should we write that out of the First Amendment as well?
Nothing good can come by letting fringe groups like the Westboro Baptist Church rewrite our First Amendment jurisprudence. Whether the freedom of speech as it is practiced in the United States is superior to its treatment in the rest of the world is up for debate. If we should ever wish to change our stance, however, we should make sure we are doing it for the right reasons and not the wrong ones.
“A Sinking Tide”
A famous, and optimistic, economic maxim says that “ a rising tide lifts all ships.” Unfortunately the opposite is also true. But a sinking tide is interesting for other reasons. As any beachgoer can tell you, when the tide goes out you can see what was previously covered--all the detritus that the waves bring forward is brought into view. Bottles, wood, seaweed.
In much the same way, an economic downturn uncovers things about our democracy and our society—many of them unsightly. What were previously only disagreements start to come to a fever pitch. Partisan gridlock starts to bring Congress to a halt. It’s not hard to think of specific examples. Like gun control. For one segment of society guns are the tools of criminals and the policeman who chase them. Their existence elsewhere poses an unnecessary risk to children and the mentally unstable. For others, guns are a heritage passed down from generation to generation, all the way back to the founding of the country. They provide a means of recreation and protection.
Or take health care. For some, the creation of universal health care approaches something akin to a moral obligation. America’s failure to provide health care already, when so many other less wealthy countries have been able to do so, is seen as an indictment of US values. To others, the very idea of introducing more government bureaucracy into health care is ill advised. Government programs already exist to cover many people in need. Further involvement will only lead to a loss of overall quality and an increase in government involvement in the lives of people who neither need nor desire it.
Or take border control. Many people see those coming over the border illegally, fleeing desperate poverty and sending massive amounts of money home to wives, children, and parents, and shudder at the idea of treating them like bank robbers and burglars. Others are shocked both by the immigrants disregard of the law and their governments indifference to enforcing it. They see thousands of people streaming over the border, adding to the millions already here, and worry what the effect of such a large group of people will be on a country they care deeply about.
Of course, in a country as large as the U.S. there is room for a variety of viewpoints. One great American strength is the ability of differing, even contradictory, views to coexist peacefully—so long as each party believes that the other has the country’s best interests at heart. But it is exactly this faith that is currently in short supply. The problem is not that the two sides disagree, but that there is mutual incomprehension. That black divide is a fertile breeding group for suspicion and animosity. And there, as Auden said, yawns a divide that embraces cannot bridge.
This rancor and partisanship has not gone unnoticed. To the contrary, both its amount and its severity have been commented upon extensively. What has received less attention is what should be done about it. When Evan Bayh, a giant of the Senate, retired he identified the extreme level of partisanship as a cause and suggested that monthly luncheons of each parties Senators could alleviate some of the ill will. While that suggestion surely has merit, it’s worth considering whether there are other, more fundamental issues that have to be addressed.
Indeed, it is worth asking whether or not certain facets of our democracy are partially to blame. One culprit could be gerrymandering. In many states, the party in power redraws the voting districts every ten years to include populations it knows support their views. This not only makes elections less competitive, it also makes politicians less compromising. After all, if your most serious reelection challenge is likely to come from the radical elements within your own party, why provide ammunition for a sharp primary battle by crossing party lines?
Another possible offender is the primary voting system itself. For the majority of the history of the Republic, primaries didn’t exist. Indeed, even when Robert Kennedy ran for President in 1968 only sixteen states held them. Though they have come to be a settled part of our electoral landscape there has been little public discussion of whether their overall effect has positive. It’s settled political strategy to move to the left or right during a primary campaign and then to move to the center for the general election. But why should we countenance a system that requires a candidate to espouse one set of views to one group and then requires them to give a different account of their views to another group only shortly thereafter, thereby practically requiring deception? Is it any surprise, then, that there has been a push for unwaveringly pure candidates that disdain compromise and who, once elected, will surely serve only to further the partisan gridlock that already consumes our capital?
I don’t mean to suggest that these are the only, or even the foremost causes for the acrimony that currently dominates our public debate. I do suggest that the current acrimony has deep structural roots that need to be addressed. When the tide comes back in it will be easy to put these divisions out of mind. But the water only conceals, it does not repair. If we fail to act, then when the tide goes out again, we are likely to find that our situation has worsened considerably.
In much the same way, an economic downturn uncovers things about our democracy and our society—many of them unsightly. What were previously only disagreements start to come to a fever pitch. Partisan gridlock starts to bring Congress to a halt. It’s not hard to think of specific examples. Like gun control. For one segment of society guns are the tools of criminals and the policeman who chase them. Their existence elsewhere poses an unnecessary risk to children and the mentally unstable. For others, guns are a heritage passed down from generation to generation, all the way back to the founding of the country. They provide a means of recreation and protection.
Or take health care. For some, the creation of universal health care approaches something akin to a moral obligation. America’s failure to provide health care already, when so many other less wealthy countries have been able to do so, is seen as an indictment of US values. To others, the very idea of introducing more government bureaucracy into health care is ill advised. Government programs already exist to cover many people in need. Further involvement will only lead to a loss of overall quality and an increase in government involvement in the lives of people who neither need nor desire it.
Or take border control. Many people see those coming over the border illegally, fleeing desperate poverty and sending massive amounts of money home to wives, children, and parents, and shudder at the idea of treating them like bank robbers and burglars. Others are shocked both by the immigrants disregard of the law and their governments indifference to enforcing it. They see thousands of people streaming over the border, adding to the millions already here, and worry what the effect of such a large group of people will be on a country they care deeply about.
Of course, in a country as large as the U.S. there is room for a variety of viewpoints. One great American strength is the ability of differing, even contradictory, views to coexist peacefully—so long as each party believes that the other has the country’s best interests at heart. But it is exactly this faith that is currently in short supply. The problem is not that the two sides disagree, but that there is mutual incomprehension. That black divide is a fertile breeding group for suspicion and animosity. And there, as Auden said, yawns a divide that embraces cannot bridge.
This rancor and partisanship has not gone unnoticed. To the contrary, both its amount and its severity have been commented upon extensively. What has received less attention is what should be done about it. When Evan Bayh, a giant of the Senate, retired he identified the extreme level of partisanship as a cause and suggested that monthly luncheons of each parties Senators could alleviate some of the ill will. While that suggestion surely has merit, it’s worth considering whether there are other, more fundamental issues that have to be addressed.
Indeed, it is worth asking whether or not certain facets of our democracy are partially to blame. One culprit could be gerrymandering. In many states, the party in power redraws the voting districts every ten years to include populations it knows support their views. This not only makes elections less competitive, it also makes politicians less compromising. After all, if your most serious reelection challenge is likely to come from the radical elements within your own party, why provide ammunition for a sharp primary battle by crossing party lines?
Another possible offender is the primary voting system itself. For the majority of the history of the Republic, primaries didn’t exist. Indeed, even when Robert Kennedy ran for President in 1968 only sixteen states held them. Though they have come to be a settled part of our electoral landscape there has been little public discussion of whether their overall effect has positive. It’s settled political strategy to move to the left or right during a primary campaign and then to move to the center for the general election. But why should we countenance a system that requires a candidate to espouse one set of views to one group and then requires them to give a different account of their views to another group only shortly thereafter, thereby practically requiring deception? Is it any surprise, then, that there has been a push for unwaveringly pure candidates that disdain compromise and who, once elected, will surely serve only to further the partisan gridlock that already consumes our capital?
I don’t mean to suggest that these are the only, or even the foremost causes for the acrimony that currently dominates our public debate. I do suggest that the current acrimony has deep structural roots that need to be addressed. When the tide comes back in it will be easy to put these divisions out of mind. But the water only conceals, it does not repair. If we fail to act, then when the tide goes out again, we are likely to find that our situation has worsened considerably.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
CIFTA
When a drug cartel offers to make a “truce” with a national government, there is good cause for concern. When the citizens of that country are disappointed when the government fails to take them up on the offer, there is cause for outright alarm.
A truce is, of course, just what the now-notorious La Familia cartel in Mexico’s Michoacán state recently offered to the Mexican government. And this after the cartel responded to the arrest of one of their top men by murdering twelve off-duty Federal agents and going on a shooting rampage through multiple cities. The disappointment has not come to pass, yet. President Calderón’s war on the cartels remains popular among Mexicans. But, following recent midterm election losses by the President’s party, there is concern that the ongoing war on the cartels, which has led to the loss of almost 13,000 lives, is starting to wear.
Faced with this scenario, and a very public acknowledgment by President Obama of the negative international effects of the United States’ drug problem, the U.S. has struggled for an effective way to assist countries combating the drug trade. One answer is the three year, $1.5 billion dollar Mérida Initiative, which was passed by Congress last year. Another is the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (known as CIFTA for its Spanish initials) that President Obama recently urged the Senate to gives its advice and consent to.
But what exactly is CIFTA? As its title indicates, it is a treaty meant to address the manufacturing and trafficking of firearms through greater collaboration among the 34 members of the Organization of American States, which is comprised of the nations of North and South America. The heart of the treaty calls for increases in the exchange of information, experiences and training methods, and technical and legal assistance, and also provides an independent basis for extradition. The treaty specifically contemplates “controlled delivery” operations, where a country knowingly allows illegal items to pass through it in order to identify as many people involved in the transfer as possible, including, ultimately, the end buyers.
All well so far. But the treaty does suffer from some conceptual and practical problems. For instance, it calls for the marking of each legally manufactured weapon in order to facilitate the tracking of illegal arm flow, which is something the U.S. already does. But, a much-cited statistic of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that 90% of the illegal firearms in Mexico originate in the United States. And logic dictates that most of those weapons are coming from states bordering Mexico. While there is certainly information to be gained from finding out the exact routes the weapons take and where they ultimately end up, the basic trajectory is not in question: the guns flow South.
Another provision of CIFTA calls for “Strengthening of Controls at Export Points.” CIFTA is silent on the best way to bring this about, which is unfortunate because how best to strengthen border controls is a topic of constant debate within the U.S. and between the U.S. and Mexico. Creating a legal obligation will not make it any easier to improve border security without impeding trade, causing offense, or creating environmental disruption and it seems curious to undertake an obligation without a clear idea of how it will be achieved.
Finally, while increased cooperation among states on technical and legal matters is generally to be lauded, it’s worth asking how much assistance the U.S. will be receiving versus contributing, and what the ultimate costs of the treaty will be to the U.S. taxpayer. How has the treaty operated up to this point? If it hasn’t operated well, or hasn’t operated period, the case for the U.S. joining seems weakened.
None of this is to say that the U.S. should not ultimately join CIFTA. The ongoing violence in Mexico is shocking and has created something approaching a moral imperative regarding increased U.S. involvement. CIFTA’s advocates argue that ratifying the treaty would be a strong sign of solidarity with neighboring nations in the fight against the cartels. But there are ways to signal support without creating binding international obligations.
Why a treaty, and specifically CIFTA, is the tool for the job is the question at hand. And, it is a question that needs answering sooner rather than later.
A truce is, of course, just what the now-notorious La Familia cartel in Mexico’s Michoacán state recently offered to the Mexican government. And this after the cartel responded to the arrest of one of their top men by murdering twelve off-duty Federal agents and going on a shooting rampage through multiple cities. The disappointment has not come to pass, yet. President Calderón’s war on the cartels remains popular among Mexicans. But, following recent midterm election losses by the President’s party, there is concern that the ongoing war on the cartels, which has led to the loss of almost 13,000 lives, is starting to wear.
Faced with this scenario, and a very public acknowledgment by President Obama of the negative international effects of the United States’ drug problem, the U.S. has struggled for an effective way to assist countries combating the drug trade. One answer is the three year, $1.5 billion dollar Mérida Initiative, which was passed by Congress last year. Another is the Inter-American Convention Against Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms (known as CIFTA for its Spanish initials) that President Obama recently urged the Senate to gives its advice and consent to.
But what exactly is CIFTA? As its title indicates, it is a treaty meant to address the manufacturing and trafficking of firearms through greater collaboration among the 34 members of the Organization of American States, which is comprised of the nations of North and South America. The heart of the treaty calls for increases in the exchange of information, experiences and training methods, and technical and legal assistance, and also provides an independent basis for extradition. The treaty specifically contemplates “controlled delivery” operations, where a country knowingly allows illegal items to pass through it in order to identify as many people involved in the transfer as possible, including, ultimately, the end buyers.
All well so far. But the treaty does suffer from some conceptual and practical problems. For instance, it calls for the marking of each legally manufactured weapon in order to facilitate the tracking of illegal arm flow, which is something the U.S. already does. But, a much-cited statistic of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms estimates that 90% of the illegal firearms in Mexico originate in the United States. And logic dictates that most of those weapons are coming from states bordering Mexico. While there is certainly information to be gained from finding out the exact routes the weapons take and where they ultimately end up, the basic trajectory is not in question: the guns flow South.
Another provision of CIFTA calls for “Strengthening of Controls at Export Points.” CIFTA is silent on the best way to bring this about, which is unfortunate because how best to strengthen border controls is a topic of constant debate within the U.S. and between the U.S. and Mexico. Creating a legal obligation will not make it any easier to improve border security without impeding trade, causing offense, or creating environmental disruption and it seems curious to undertake an obligation without a clear idea of how it will be achieved.
Finally, while increased cooperation among states on technical and legal matters is generally to be lauded, it’s worth asking how much assistance the U.S. will be receiving versus contributing, and what the ultimate costs of the treaty will be to the U.S. taxpayer. How has the treaty operated up to this point? If it hasn’t operated well, or hasn’t operated period, the case for the U.S. joining seems weakened.
None of this is to say that the U.S. should not ultimately join CIFTA. The ongoing violence in Mexico is shocking and has created something approaching a moral imperative regarding increased U.S. involvement. CIFTA’s advocates argue that ratifying the treaty would be a strong sign of solidarity with neighboring nations in the fight against the cartels. But there are ways to signal support without creating binding international obligations.
Why a treaty, and specifically CIFTA, is the tool for the job is the question at hand. And, it is a question that needs answering sooner rather than later.
Accidents
The murders in Ciudad Juárez of Lesley Enriquez, a consulate worker, her husband, Arthur Redelf, and Jorge Alberto Salcido Ceniceros, the husband of another consulate worker, has refocused American attention of the ongoing violence along the U.S.- Mexican border. In what seems like a miracle, the baby of Ms. Enriquez and Mr. Redelf and the two children of Mr. Ceniceros survived. The fact that the two children were injured makes it more likely their survival was accidental than intentional. Initial evidence indicates that a gang named Los Aztecas committed the attacks, potentially at the behest of the Juárez Cartel.
In fact, the two attacks may themselves have been accidents, something that happens all too frequently along the border. The fact of the matter is that the cartels and the gangs that work with them, already in violent conflict with each other and the Mexican government, have little incentive to bring down the full wrath of the United States.
The 18,000 deaths that have occurred since President Calderón came to office promising to battle the drug cartels have been anything but an accident, however. They are the result of a pitched battle between the Mexican government and a group of cartels that are well financed, highly experienced, and remorselessly brutal. It is rare that a week goes by without bodies being found in the desert that have decapitated or otherwise disfigured.
The results of the conflict so far could best be described as a stalemate. Why the lack of success? We know what the problems are, but the most obvious solutions to those problems immediately run aground. Consider the firearms the cartels use. According to the ATF, ninety percent of the weapons seized at the border or following raids and shootings come from the U.S. The majority of these come from the states bordering Mexico: Texas, New Mexico, Utah and California. Attempts to curb access to guns in those states, however, by limiting purchases to one gun at a time or to one gun a month, immediately run into fierce opposition by Second Amendment advocates.
Another obvious solution would be to legalize marijuana. Doing so would immediately deprive the drug cartels of highly lucrative market. Voters in California are considering this very option, and are set to vote on a ballot initiative to this effect later this year. However, nationally, the issue is a nonstarter. The U.S. has spent the better part of forty years, untold billions of dollars, and countless lives on an unsuccessful War on Drugs. An about-face now would be unthinkable.
Or consider tighter border controls. Drugs seep into the United States hidden in the secret components of cars and trucks, in luggage, in people. Guns and money flow south in the same way, although money is sometimes aggregated and transferred from banks in the U.S. to Mexican exchange houses immediately over the border. Increasing the number and accuracy of searches of vehicles coming over the border, however, would catch up commercial vehicles as well, slowing vital trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Penalizing U.S. banks for failing to scrupulously regulate monetary transfers, it is argued, has the same effect.
The United States attempt to assist Mexico while working within these restrictions has resulted in the Mérida Initiative. The Initiative’s original package transferred hardware like Blackhawk helicopters and drug scanning equipment to Mexico, as well as money to strengthen the judiciary, reduce corruption and generally further the rule of law. The second installment, partially spurred by the deaths of Ms. Enriquez, Mr. Redelf, and Mr. Ceniceros, will focus more exclusively on this latter goal.
There are good reasons for this. Mexican citizens and human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the conduct of Mexican police, military personnel and prosecutors. Indeed, there are few people who wouldn’t support improvement in these categories—but this is a long-term objective that will do little to help Mexican’s who feel as though they live in a battlefield. Bringing about a short-term change will require the political courage to face difficult, even intractable, problems. All options need to be on the table.
The Obama Administration raised eyebrows last year when a senior official admitted that American’s insatiable appetite for narcotics was fueling the drug war. With that acknowledgment came an obligation to help bring about a workable, lasting solution. That obligation isn’t just to the accidental deaths of our own citizens. It is also to the deaths of thousands of Mexican citizens who have been caught in the crossfire of criminals seeking to bring their product north to the United States.
In fact, the two attacks may themselves have been accidents, something that happens all too frequently along the border. The fact of the matter is that the cartels and the gangs that work with them, already in violent conflict with each other and the Mexican government, have little incentive to bring down the full wrath of the United States.
The 18,000 deaths that have occurred since President Calderón came to office promising to battle the drug cartels have been anything but an accident, however. They are the result of a pitched battle between the Mexican government and a group of cartels that are well financed, highly experienced, and remorselessly brutal. It is rare that a week goes by without bodies being found in the desert that have decapitated or otherwise disfigured.
The results of the conflict so far could best be described as a stalemate. Why the lack of success? We know what the problems are, but the most obvious solutions to those problems immediately run aground. Consider the firearms the cartels use. According to the ATF, ninety percent of the weapons seized at the border or following raids and shootings come from the U.S. The majority of these come from the states bordering Mexico: Texas, New Mexico, Utah and California. Attempts to curb access to guns in those states, however, by limiting purchases to one gun at a time or to one gun a month, immediately run into fierce opposition by Second Amendment advocates.
Another obvious solution would be to legalize marijuana. Doing so would immediately deprive the drug cartels of highly lucrative market. Voters in California are considering this very option, and are set to vote on a ballot initiative to this effect later this year. However, nationally, the issue is a nonstarter. The U.S. has spent the better part of forty years, untold billions of dollars, and countless lives on an unsuccessful War on Drugs. An about-face now would be unthinkable.
Or consider tighter border controls. Drugs seep into the United States hidden in the secret components of cars and trucks, in luggage, in people. Guns and money flow south in the same way, although money is sometimes aggregated and transferred from banks in the U.S. to Mexican exchange houses immediately over the border. Increasing the number and accuracy of searches of vehicles coming over the border, however, would catch up commercial vehicles as well, slowing vital trade between the U.S. and Mexico. Penalizing U.S. banks for failing to scrupulously regulate monetary transfers, it is argued, has the same effect.
The United States attempt to assist Mexico while working within these restrictions has resulted in the Mérida Initiative. The Initiative’s original package transferred hardware like Blackhawk helicopters and drug scanning equipment to Mexico, as well as money to strengthen the judiciary, reduce corruption and generally further the rule of law. The second installment, partially spurred by the deaths of Ms. Enriquez, Mr. Redelf, and Mr. Ceniceros, will focus more exclusively on this latter goal.
There are good reasons for this. Mexican citizens and human rights organizations have raised serious concerns about the conduct of Mexican police, military personnel and prosecutors. Indeed, there are few people who wouldn’t support improvement in these categories—but this is a long-term objective that will do little to help Mexican’s who feel as though they live in a battlefield. Bringing about a short-term change will require the political courage to face difficult, even intractable, problems. All options need to be on the table.
The Obama Administration raised eyebrows last year when a senior official admitted that American’s insatiable appetite for narcotics was fueling the drug war. With that acknowledgment came an obligation to help bring about a workable, lasting solution. That obligation isn’t just to the accidental deaths of our own citizens. It is also to the deaths of thousands of Mexican citizens who have been caught in the crossfire of criminals seeking to bring their product north to the United States.
Which Jefferson?
Less Thomas Jefferson and more Jefferson Davis. Less Hip Hop and more Ronald Reagan, Phyllis Schlafly, and Newt Gingrich. Under intense national scrutiny, these are the kinds of decisions that the Texas State Board of Education has been making while determining the content of history textbooks for the students of its state. And, because Texas is a major purchaser of textbooks nationally, the decisions made by the Board will have repercussions for the students of dozens of other states.
Even taking these decisions on the merits, however, there is room for debate. Take, for example, the Board’s decision to lower the profile of Thomas Jefferson while putting Jefferson Davis’ ideas on equal footing with Abraham Lincoln’s. Reportedly, the Board wanted to deemphasize the wall between church and state that Jefferson wrote about to a group of Danbury Baptists in 1802. But Jefferson was also a fierce advocate of state’s rights. When the Adams Administration passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, effectively criminalizing public commentary critical of the sitting government, Jefferson and Madison who drafted both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Those Resolutions argued that State’s could effectively nullify Federal legislation. As more than a dozen state attorneys general are busy preparing challenges to national health care legislation, one would think Thomas Jefferson would receive a more favorable hearing. But history is a tricky thing.
Watching the School Board proceeding, however, makes one thing clear: these are not the impartial deliberations of dusty old historians. The members of the Board are elected—one is dentist, the other a lawyer--but the majority is unabashedly conservative. They have been given the responsibility of determining what their children learn and they detect a liberal tint to history. They see it as their duty to try to correct it.
The view that the history contained in school textbooks is biased towards the left is not limited to the Texas State Board of Education. More than a few people accept it as a fact, and it has become fashionable in some circles to claim that history is so inherently biased and the only way teach the subject fairly is to expose students to polarized political accounts—A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, next to A Patriot’s History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.
But acknowledging bias in history is nothing new. Historians have long known that writing history is, by definition, to exclude some things and include others. For example, a history of the American Revolution written in the 1960s will be different than a similar history written in the 1860s. The major events will undoubtedly be the same, but the fact that they were written a century parts means they will differ in certain details. The amount of time spent discussing slavery is the most obvious example, but hardly the only one. An account of the role women played would be excluded in the earlier account, but undoubtedly included in the second. Surely we would agree with the later account, but that fact notwithstanding, the earlier historian would be surprised to be accused of trying to pull one over on his readers. Indeed, although historians in the 1960s may have disagreed with what previous historians have written, they did not believe they had attempted to purposefully deceive the public. The fact is that history evolves as our understanding evolves—there is nothing ill intentioned about it. But there is an important distinction between unintentional bias and purposeful alteration that the current debate misses. And it is purposeful alteration that the Texas School Board and their supporters are charging.
The truth is history can never be completely without bias, no matter how far we get away from it. But the history we write tells future generations not only about what we’re writing, but about ourselves. The very act of writing history records the history not only of the intended subject, but also of the writer. This additional level of meaning is destroyed if instead of attempting to write an unbiased account, to the degree we are able, we purposefully subvert our history in order to account for what we perceive as previous distortions. Ultimately the question we need to ask ourselves is: What do we want our history we write say about us?
Even taking these decisions on the merits, however, there is room for debate. Take, for example, the Board’s decision to lower the profile of Thomas Jefferson while putting Jefferson Davis’ ideas on equal footing with Abraham Lincoln’s. Reportedly, the Board wanted to deemphasize the wall between church and state that Jefferson wrote about to a group of Danbury Baptists in 1802. But Jefferson was also a fierce advocate of state’s rights. When the Adams Administration passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, effectively criminalizing public commentary critical of the sitting government, Jefferson and Madison who drafted both the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. Those Resolutions argued that State’s could effectively nullify Federal legislation. As more than a dozen state attorneys general are busy preparing challenges to national health care legislation, one would think Thomas Jefferson would receive a more favorable hearing. But history is a tricky thing.
Watching the School Board proceeding, however, makes one thing clear: these are not the impartial deliberations of dusty old historians. The members of the Board are elected—one is dentist, the other a lawyer--but the majority is unabashedly conservative. They have been given the responsibility of determining what their children learn and they detect a liberal tint to history. They see it as their duty to try to correct it.
The view that the history contained in school textbooks is biased towards the left is not limited to the Texas State Board of Education. More than a few people accept it as a fact, and it has become fashionable in some circles to claim that history is so inherently biased and the only way teach the subject fairly is to expose students to polarized political accounts—A People’s History of the United States, by Howard Zinn, next to A Patriot’s History of the United States, by Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen.
But acknowledging bias in history is nothing new. Historians have long known that writing history is, by definition, to exclude some things and include others. For example, a history of the American Revolution written in the 1960s will be different than a similar history written in the 1860s. The major events will undoubtedly be the same, but the fact that they were written a century parts means they will differ in certain details. The amount of time spent discussing slavery is the most obvious example, but hardly the only one. An account of the role women played would be excluded in the earlier account, but undoubtedly included in the second. Surely we would agree with the later account, but that fact notwithstanding, the earlier historian would be surprised to be accused of trying to pull one over on his readers. Indeed, although historians in the 1960s may have disagreed with what previous historians have written, they did not believe they had attempted to purposefully deceive the public. The fact is that history evolves as our understanding evolves—there is nothing ill intentioned about it. But there is an important distinction between unintentional bias and purposeful alteration that the current debate misses. And it is purposeful alteration that the Texas School Board and their supporters are charging.
The truth is history can never be completely without bias, no matter how far we get away from it. But the history we write tells future generations not only about what we’re writing, but about ourselves. The very act of writing history records the history not only of the intended subject, but also of the writer. This additional level of meaning is destroyed if instead of attempting to write an unbiased account, to the degree we are able, we purposefully subvert our history in order to account for what we perceive as previous distortions. Ultimately the question we need to ask ourselves is: What do we want our history we write say about us?
Three Treaties
Currently, the Obama administration is considering submitting several treaties relating to nuclear weapons to the U.S. Senate. Among other things, these treaties would reduce the number of U.S. nuclear warheads, prohibit the testing of nuclear weapons, and end the production of the plutonium and highly enriched uranium that are nuclear weapons main components. To the extent that we are able to reduce both the amount and allure of these almost incomprehensibly powerful weapons, the case for doing so would seem self-evident. But, opposition to the treaties is already forming, and with significant force. Indeed, if President Obama is able to pass each of the proposed treaties he will have taken a large step towards earning the Nobel Peace Prize he has already received.
Some of the opposition to the treaties is automatic, some of it is predictable, some thoughtful, and some less so. Regardless, the appearance of the treaties presents an opportunity to begin again a vital discussion about U.S. nuclear weapon policy. It was 1961 when President Kennedy told the country that “only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.” As compelling as that point was at the time, in the intervening forty-eight years much has changed. Instead of facing a large, unified country like the Soviet Union, today are enemies are insurgents scattered among the population, in Iraq, and deep in the mountains, in Afghanistan. Even if we desired to use them, if we are can’t locate and terminate the shadowy agents of al-Queda with Predator missiles, the use of nuclear weapons would seem unwise.
And not only is our nuclear arsenal unavailing in our current military conflicts. One only has to scan the headlines to see the instability nuclear weapons create. From Iran’s newly revealed fuel enrichment facility, to North Korea’s cyclical flirtations and rejections regarding its nuclear program, to the increased dangerousness of the simmering conflict between India and Pakistan, nuclear weaponry has a unique ability to create and exacerbate existing problems.
Of course, we should be realistic about what can be accomplished both through American influence and through international treaties. There will always be individuals who will seek whatever is the most destructive power available. That fact makes the question of whether a complete abolition of nuclear weapons is in America’s interest a complicated one—but luckily one that the pending treaties do not raise. Even if we would be less safe with no nuclear weapons it is unclear whether it would be less safe to have 1,500 warheads, as would be required through one of the pending treaties, as opposed to 15,000 or even 150,000. The lesser amount would leave us with a more than a half dozen warheads for every nation on earth, and conflict with Bhutan seems less than imminent.
And neither should we underestimate the good that could come from U.S. leadership. A move to dismantle our nuclear arsenal could send a powerful signal to the world. At the very least, our appeals towards nonproliferation and stockpile reduction in other countries are more likely to be taken seriously if we continue to take significant measures to reduce our own immense reserves. Too often foreign leaders seeking nuclear weaponry are able to channel national pride to support their endeavors. Why, they ask, should America have access to such a large reserve of weapons and while others are restrained? What, they ask, about the military judgment of the United States over the last decade justifies granting them unlimited access to such destructive potential? Ironically, through these and similar protestations America’s enemies are able to take our nuclear arsenal, meant to make us safe, and use it against us as a powerful tool for propaganda.
One common refrain voiced by those who oppose a reduction, in different forms, is that doing so would make America less safe. This, of course, is the vital question. It is always easiest to preserve the status quo, and having a rich supply of weapons—solid, tangible, powerful—is psychologically more comforting than dismantling them in the hope that, at some future point, our world can be rid of these terrible weapons forever. But, to be great, a country must be willing to take risks, and to lead, a country must be willing to expose itself to some the same dangers it expects other countries to face. The question that faces the Senate, and through the Senate the American people, is whether the risks of leadership on this issue are worthwhile. That is a conversation very much worth having.
Some of the opposition to the treaties is automatic, some of it is predictable, some thoughtful, and some less so. Regardless, the appearance of the treaties presents an opportunity to begin again a vital discussion about U.S. nuclear weapon policy. It was 1961 when President Kennedy told the country that “only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.” As compelling as that point was at the time, in the intervening forty-eight years much has changed. Instead of facing a large, unified country like the Soviet Union, today are enemies are insurgents scattered among the population, in Iraq, and deep in the mountains, in Afghanistan. Even if we desired to use them, if we are can’t locate and terminate the shadowy agents of al-Queda with Predator missiles, the use of nuclear weapons would seem unwise.
And not only is our nuclear arsenal unavailing in our current military conflicts. One only has to scan the headlines to see the instability nuclear weapons create. From Iran’s newly revealed fuel enrichment facility, to North Korea’s cyclical flirtations and rejections regarding its nuclear program, to the increased dangerousness of the simmering conflict between India and Pakistan, nuclear weaponry has a unique ability to create and exacerbate existing problems.
Of course, we should be realistic about what can be accomplished both through American influence and through international treaties. There will always be individuals who will seek whatever is the most destructive power available. That fact makes the question of whether a complete abolition of nuclear weapons is in America’s interest a complicated one—but luckily one that the pending treaties do not raise. Even if we would be less safe with no nuclear weapons it is unclear whether it would be less safe to have 1,500 warheads, as would be required through one of the pending treaties, as opposed to 15,000 or even 150,000. The lesser amount would leave us with a more than a half dozen warheads for every nation on earth, and conflict with Bhutan seems less than imminent.
And neither should we underestimate the good that could come from U.S. leadership. A move to dismantle our nuclear arsenal could send a powerful signal to the world. At the very least, our appeals towards nonproliferation and stockpile reduction in other countries are more likely to be taken seriously if we continue to take significant measures to reduce our own immense reserves. Too often foreign leaders seeking nuclear weaponry are able to channel national pride to support their endeavors. Why, they ask, should America have access to such a large reserve of weapons and while others are restrained? What, they ask, about the military judgment of the United States over the last decade justifies granting them unlimited access to such destructive potential? Ironically, through these and similar protestations America’s enemies are able to take our nuclear arsenal, meant to make us safe, and use it against us as a powerful tool for propaganda.
One common refrain voiced by those who oppose a reduction, in different forms, is that doing so would make America less safe. This, of course, is the vital question. It is always easiest to preserve the status quo, and having a rich supply of weapons—solid, tangible, powerful—is psychologically more comforting than dismantling them in the hope that, at some future point, our world can be rid of these terrible weapons forever. But, to be great, a country must be willing to take risks, and to lead, a country must be willing to expose itself to some the same dangers it expects other countries to face. The question that faces the Senate, and through the Senate the American people, is whether the risks of leadership on this issue are worthwhile. That is a conversation very much worth having.
An Odd Number for Democracy
If anyone has ever actually rolled over in his grave, than Ted Kennedy just rolled over in his. Last Tuesday, Republicans took back a Senate seat that had been deprived them for 57 years in what is being called the greatest upset in Massachusetts’ history. Senator-Elect Brown ran an earnest and dedicated campaign, and made it clear that he saw the seat as a privileged to be earned. To the voters, it looked too much like Martha Coakley saw the seat as a gift to be bequeathed. The results were splashed in newspaper headlines around the world. After it was all over, the atmosphere was festive at the Brown campaign’s election night party. Supporters laughed and talked, sang and chanted, “Brown,” and “Yes We Can,” and “41.”
But 41 is a strange number for a democracy. Someone less familiar with the intricacies of our federal system might be excused for wondering what good a minority of Senators could do in what is primarily a majoritarian system. The particular rule at issue in this case is, of course, the filibuster, which can fairly be described as a well-established one procedural maneuver. It is meant to be an important tool for the minority in preventing egregious overreaching by the majority. But is that he role it plays today?
In its beginnings in the 1850s, the filibuster was meant to ensure that each Senator could have his full say on whatever issue was facing the chamber. Although the House had approved time restrictions years before, it was decided that in the Senate, the more deliberative body, each Senator should have as much time as needed to expound their views and attempt to sway their colleagues. As time progressed, the filibuster became less a tool to explain the benefits of particular legislation and more a means of demonstrating outright opposition. For example, in the 1950s Strom Thurmond froze Senate business for more than 24 hours in order to rail against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Senator Thurmond wasn’t filling the time with reasoned debate--opting instead to read phone books and the rules of card games--but he stood before his colleagues and objected. Since 1972, however, not even this has been required. Since the advent of Senate Rule 22, Senators may file objections procedurally and need not present objections or, indeed, even be present. The threat is often enough. Neither voice nor body is required to bring the business of the Senate to a grinding halt.
Despite this deterioration in its use, some surely still believe that the filibuster provides a vital measure of protection to the minority party. It has certainly played that role in the past. If we observe its use more recently, however, we can discern a clear trend. To wit, we find that while the filibuster was once used a dozen times a decade, it is now used a dozen times a year.
To some, this abrupt upswing might serve to prove how radical and outlandish recent administrations have been. To others, it might only serve as another sad reminder of how bitterly divided our national politics have become. But whatever the cause, the filibuster cannot provide the answer. A tool meant to operate only in extraordinary circumstances cannot function properly when everything is extraordinary. Abusing the filibuster in this way erodes the people’s faith in the basic premises of our system of government. For while it is true that we can not allow the majority to abuse the minority, neither can we allow the minority to use the protections we afford it to routinely thwart the will of the majority, the adherence to which forms the very basis of our system of government.
Nor would ending the filibuster leave the minority party defenseless. Even suggesting that might be the case gives too little credit to both the ways in which minority legislators can kill legislation by other means and the ways they can impact it through clever public relations work, hard bargaining, and block voting. In short, minority party Senators will still have all the protection their own advocacy can give. Beyond that, minority Senators can surely expect to find solace through the ballot box. Any party that truly overreaches will face the umbrage of the voters in the next election cycle and, if they lose severely enough, might well be on the receiving end of the same abuse they perpetrated against their colleagues. That possibility alone should be sufficient to curb legislative overreaching.
Perhaps most important of all is that now is the perfect time to act. Although the 2010 midterms are still some time off, if Senator-Elect Brown’s election is any indication, a more equal distribution of seats in both the House and the Senate is likely. After that, each party will have to have faith in the campaigning abilities of their fellow party members, just as, once elected, the will have to have faith in their party members ability to effect the direction of opposing legislation without resort to the filibuster. And democracy will be the better for it.
But 41 is a strange number for a democracy. Someone less familiar with the intricacies of our federal system might be excused for wondering what good a minority of Senators could do in what is primarily a majoritarian system. The particular rule at issue in this case is, of course, the filibuster, which can fairly be described as a well-established one procedural maneuver. It is meant to be an important tool for the minority in preventing egregious overreaching by the majority. But is that he role it plays today?
In its beginnings in the 1850s, the filibuster was meant to ensure that each Senator could have his full say on whatever issue was facing the chamber. Although the House had approved time restrictions years before, it was decided that in the Senate, the more deliberative body, each Senator should have as much time as needed to expound their views and attempt to sway their colleagues. As time progressed, the filibuster became less a tool to explain the benefits of particular legislation and more a means of demonstrating outright opposition. For example, in the 1950s Strom Thurmond froze Senate business for more than 24 hours in order to rail against the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Senator Thurmond wasn’t filling the time with reasoned debate--opting instead to read phone books and the rules of card games--but he stood before his colleagues and objected. Since 1972, however, not even this has been required. Since the advent of Senate Rule 22, Senators may file objections procedurally and need not present objections or, indeed, even be present. The threat is often enough. Neither voice nor body is required to bring the business of the Senate to a grinding halt.
Despite this deterioration in its use, some surely still believe that the filibuster provides a vital measure of protection to the minority party. It has certainly played that role in the past. If we observe its use more recently, however, we can discern a clear trend. To wit, we find that while the filibuster was once used a dozen times a decade, it is now used a dozen times a year.
To some, this abrupt upswing might serve to prove how radical and outlandish recent administrations have been. To others, it might only serve as another sad reminder of how bitterly divided our national politics have become. But whatever the cause, the filibuster cannot provide the answer. A tool meant to operate only in extraordinary circumstances cannot function properly when everything is extraordinary. Abusing the filibuster in this way erodes the people’s faith in the basic premises of our system of government. For while it is true that we can not allow the majority to abuse the minority, neither can we allow the minority to use the protections we afford it to routinely thwart the will of the majority, the adherence to which forms the very basis of our system of government.
Nor would ending the filibuster leave the minority party defenseless. Even suggesting that might be the case gives too little credit to both the ways in which minority legislators can kill legislation by other means and the ways they can impact it through clever public relations work, hard bargaining, and block voting. In short, minority party Senators will still have all the protection their own advocacy can give. Beyond that, minority Senators can surely expect to find solace through the ballot box. Any party that truly overreaches will face the umbrage of the voters in the next election cycle and, if they lose severely enough, might well be on the receiving end of the same abuse they perpetrated against their colleagues. That possibility alone should be sufficient to curb legislative overreaching.
Perhaps most important of all is that now is the perfect time to act. Although the 2010 midterms are still some time off, if Senator-Elect Brown’s election is any indication, a more equal distribution of seats in both the House and the Senate is likely. After that, each party will have to have faith in the campaigning abilities of their fellow party members, just as, once elected, the will have to have faith in their party members ability to effect the direction of opposing legislation without resort to the filibuster. And democracy will be the better for it.
Misreading Massachusetts
The shock that followed Senator Scott Brown’s victory against Martha Coakley in Massachusetts’ Special Election a few months ago left the political world speechless. For a moment. But before long, a story developed. The election was heralded as the beginning of a revolution. A decisive rebuke to the President, the President’s agenda, Democrats generally, and the entire District of Colombia. A new Republican Revolution was underway, we were told, and 2010 was going to look a lot like 1994.
Supporters of this view took great satisfaction when, in one of his first acts, Senator Brown joined with his Republican colleagues in blocking Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board. That satisfaction was significantly muted, however, when Senator Brown voted shortly afterwards to allow a contested jobs bill to come to the floor of the Senate. In explaining his decision, Senator Brown stated simply that while the bill was far from perfect, he had a responsibility to the citizens of Massachusetts to do what he could to encourage job creation. Some of his fiscally conservative supporters seemed absolutely jilted. Could it be that Senator Brown’s election didn’t mean what we’d been told?
It’s helpful to take a closer look at the supporters who ushered Senator Brown into office. Although he disavowed being a “Tea Party Candidate,” there’s little doubt that the discontent that fuels the Tea Party movement swept him into office. That movement, which takes its name from the famous Boston protest by the Sons of Liberty, is a fractured group of local activists worried about government expansion and a rapidly increasing national debt. As a movement, the Tea Party draws a great deal of its strength from its ideological fervor--for example, Tea Party activists strongly support “Purity Tests” for potential Republican candidates. Accordingly, it wasn’t much of a surprise when a recent poll of Tea Partiers showed a much higher regard for Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck than Olympia Snowe. But Republican establishment candidates like Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and Michael Steele also fared badly.
But this creates a conundrum. While ideological extremism is useful for drawing people to a cause, in a system of government based on compromise, it has certain inherent limitations. True, it plays well in primaries. In a closely watched Senate race in Florida, the candidate favored by Tea Partiers, Marc Rubio, has come from behind and is now leading the sitting Governor Charles Crist in statewide polls. However, Rubio faces a significantly more difficult general election challenge. So how many Tea Party candidates are likely to enter Congress in 2010? Democrats, without a purity test but with substantial majorities in both Houses, saw their agenda quickly stall in the face of a unified opposition. It’s unclear how much of an impact a severe minority of extremely conservative legislators, disinclined toward compromise, will have on Congress.
Or consider health care. Although both Democrats and Republicans have referenced Massachusetts’ health care plan in the ongoing national debate, few have noted what the aftermath of passing the legislation was. With Democrats all over the country facing stiff reelection battles in November and wondering what the repercussions of passing the national legislation will be, the question is far from hypothetical. So what happened? The majority of voters were unaffected. Massachusetts’ overall rate of coverage skyrocketed to more than 97% and costs increased slightly, although within previous estimates. Seven out of ten residents claim to be happy with the tradeoff.
Perhaps looming larger than any other topic is the economy. In Massachusetts the unemployment rate is lower than the national average, but other factors indicate the Commonwealth may be experiencing a more unsteady recovery than the nation at large. Still, although tenuous, there are promising signs. And with the 2010 elections still more than six months away, there is adequate time for early economic gains to take root. Two quarters of growth--with even small drops in unemployment--could have a huge impact on the electoral landscape. And the candidates that will reap those gains will be those, like Senator Brown, who worked to bring about that recovery by, for example, supporting federal job bills.
So what does all this mean? Secretary Geithner, who must have a black sense of humor, reportedly commented a few weeks ago that while the Obama Administration managed to save the economy, in doing so it seemed to have lost the public. It is an impressive bit of understatement to say that the Obama Administration has had trouble getting its message out. This has to change. All spin aside, Democrats chances in the fall may not be as bleak as they have been made out to be. For all that Senator Brown’s election meant, it did not mean the end of universal health care. Democrats need to begin rethinking the 2010 midterms, and Massachusetts is a good place start.
Supporters of this view took great satisfaction when, in one of his first acts, Senator Brown joined with his Republican colleagues in blocking Craig Becker’s nomination to the National Labor Relations Board. That satisfaction was significantly muted, however, when Senator Brown voted shortly afterwards to allow a contested jobs bill to come to the floor of the Senate. In explaining his decision, Senator Brown stated simply that while the bill was far from perfect, he had a responsibility to the citizens of Massachusetts to do what he could to encourage job creation. Some of his fiscally conservative supporters seemed absolutely jilted. Could it be that Senator Brown’s election didn’t mean what we’d been told?
It’s helpful to take a closer look at the supporters who ushered Senator Brown into office. Although he disavowed being a “Tea Party Candidate,” there’s little doubt that the discontent that fuels the Tea Party movement swept him into office. That movement, which takes its name from the famous Boston protest by the Sons of Liberty, is a fractured group of local activists worried about government expansion and a rapidly increasing national debt. As a movement, the Tea Party draws a great deal of its strength from its ideological fervor--for example, Tea Party activists strongly support “Purity Tests” for potential Republican candidates. Accordingly, it wasn’t much of a surprise when a recent poll of Tea Partiers showed a much higher regard for Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck than Olympia Snowe. But Republican establishment candidates like Mitt Romney, Mitch McConnell and Michael Steele also fared badly.
But this creates a conundrum. While ideological extremism is useful for drawing people to a cause, in a system of government based on compromise, it has certain inherent limitations. True, it plays well in primaries. In a closely watched Senate race in Florida, the candidate favored by Tea Partiers, Marc Rubio, has come from behind and is now leading the sitting Governor Charles Crist in statewide polls. However, Rubio faces a significantly more difficult general election challenge. So how many Tea Party candidates are likely to enter Congress in 2010? Democrats, without a purity test but with substantial majorities in both Houses, saw their agenda quickly stall in the face of a unified opposition. It’s unclear how much of an impact a severe minority of extremely conservative legislators, disinclined toward compromise, will have on Congress.
Or consider health care. Although both Democrats and Republicans have referenced Massachusetts’ health care plan in the ongoing national debate, few have noted what the aftermath of passing the legislation was. With Democrats all over the country facing stiff reelection battles in November and wondering what the repercussions of passing the national legislation will be, the question is far from hypothetical. So what happened? The majority of voters were unaffected. Massachusetts’ overall rate of coverage skyrocketed to more than 97% and costs increased slightly, although within previous estimates. Seven out of ten residents claim to be happy with the tradeoff.
Perhaps looming larger than any other topic is the economy. In Massachusetts the unemployment rate is lower than the national average, but other factors indicate the Commonwealth may be experiencing a more unsteady recovery than the nation at large. Still, although tenuous, there are promising signs. And with the 2010 elections still more than six months away, there is adequate time for early economic gains to take root. Two quarters of growth--with even small drops in unemployment--could have a huge impact on the electoral landscape. And the candidates that will reap those gains will be those, like Senator Brown, who worked to bring about that recovery by, for example, supporting federal job bills.
So what does all this mean? Secretary Geithner, who must have a black sense of humor, reportedly commented a few weeks ago that while the Obama Administration managed to save the economy, in doing so it seemed to have lost the public. It is an impressive bit of understatement to say that the Obama Administration has had trouble getting its message out. This has to change. All spin aside, Democrats chances in the fall may not be as bleak as they have been made out to be. For all that Senator Brown’s election meant, it did not mean the end of universal health care. Democrats need to begin rethinking the 2010 midterms, and Massachusetts is a good place start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)