FAIR : Election Coverage Misses the Mark by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. National media watchdog group FAIR reports that the media got the midterm elections all wrong. The journalists and pundits came up with a familiar analysis: the Democrats had misread their mandate and governed too far to the left and the answer is to move back to the right and reclaim “the center.” Much of the media commentary saw the election as a national referendum on the new healthcare law or the size of government. But all this falls apart under scrutiny. Obama in fact played to the Republicans on healthcare, generally alienated his base, and many Obama voters from two years ago did not participate in 2010.

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Lamar W. Hankins : 2010 Elections Without the Tea-Colored Glasses

Shading the truth? Tea Partier at Tax Day Rally in Pleaston, California, April 15, 2010. Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images.

Looking at the election
without the Tea-colored glasses

To draw grandiose conclusions about ‘demands of the American people’ is unsupported by reality and is typical spin-doctoring by Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers.

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2010

The Republican spin-doctors, talking heads, intellectuals, and factotums want the country to believe that the Republicans got it right this election. They want us to believe that Republicans are in step with the American people; that the policies they promote represent American attitudes and values.

But if we count only those who voted on November 2, they had a 52% unfavorable view of the Republican Party and a 53% unfavorable view of the Democratic Party according to research conducted by the Pew Center for the People and the Press. Like me, a majority of the voters don’t like either major party.

But the more important figures to look at to explain the voting results last Tuesday are the electorate’s views on the general direction the country is going and its views on the national economy.

Sixty-two percent of those voting believe the country is on the wrong track; 52% see the economy as “not good” and 37% see it as poor. Only 9% saw the economy as good and 1% as excellent. That 1% must be the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund operators who voted. Nearly 90% of recent voters believe that the economy is in horrible shape. Washington needs to focus on fixing the economy before it does anything else.

While I agree with the majority view, it fails to account for some realities that were largely ignored in this election and continue to be distorted by right-wing pundits. As a recent political cartoon suggests, Bush failed us for eight years by getting us into two wars, running up huge deficits, and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, and now the Republicans are trying to blame it on the black guy. No surprise there. But this recent election was not a repudiation of Obama by an “American majority,” as George Will termed it.

A majority of the “American people” did not say “no” or “yes” to anything on November 2. Only about 41.5% of the voting-eligible population voted (as contrasted with 61.6% who voted in the 2008 general election) according to the United States Election Project. These 2010 voters may have been voting for or against various messages, but they do not represent the sentiments of a majority of Americans.

The recent voters who voted against Obama and the Democrats represent slightly more than 20% of the voting-eligible public, and far less than 20% of the total population. While the Republican Tea Partiers had an impact on who voted, it remains to be seen if they will continue as a force in American politics.

The Republican Tea Partiers were as confused at the start of their movement nearly three years ago as they were on November 2. The main theme of their effort is that they represent the patriotic rebellion that came to be known, some 50 years after the event, as the Boston Tea Party.

Today’s Republican Tea Party thinks that the Boston Tea Party was all about a rebellion against King George’s tax on tea sold in the colonies. They see that Tea Party solely as a rebellion against taxes. What it was, instead, was a rebellion against the government-granted monopoly power of the East India Company, which had been exempted from the tea tax by the Tea Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1773 — an unholy alliance between government and corporate power. The tax exemption allowed the East India Company to undercut the small businesses that sold tea in the colonies.

The only first-person account of the Boston Tea Party is found in the memoir of George R. T. Hewes, published 50 years after the event because of an agreement among the participants that they would not write about it for 50 years. Most of the participants were dead by then, but Hewes penned the story in a book printed on ragged paper, A Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbour in 1773 (New York: S. Bliss, printer, 1834).

According to author Thom Hartmann, the value of the tea destroyed by the colonists in 1773 was about $1 million in today’s currency — more than a little vandalism even by today’s standards.

But the views of the Republican Tea Partiers differ widely from the views of most Americans. During the last 23 years, Pew Research Center polling has revealed that 77% of Americans believe that there is “too much power in the hands of big companies.” Between 62% and 65% of Americans, over the same time span, believe that “business corporations make too much profit.”

Despite Americans’ long-term concerns about the power of the corporations, the Tea Party Republicans have promoted, almost exclusively, the notion that the only dragon that needs to be slain is the federal government.

It is an old Republican refrain that goes hand in hand with the belief that there is no role for the federal government in promoting the “public welfare,” yet Pew research over the last three decades has shown that Americans believe by a 62% majority that the “government should guarantee food and shelter,” and from 48% to 53% have agreed that “the government should help more needy people, despite debt,” and by 63% to 71% that “government should take care of people who can’t care for themselves.”

The Republicans, including the Tea Party Republicans, enjoyed success in this past election not because the values they pushed were overwhelmingly American values, but because they were able to stimulate their voters to get to the polls, helped along by Republican-dominated media and hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate contributions made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Karl Rove political groups, and such wealthy Republicans as the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Howard Rich (a New York media mogul), John Templeton, Jr. (the now rich son of a wealthy investor), and many others.

One group that did not vote in this election was a cohort of 14 million young voters who supported Obama in 2008 but chose not to participate in this election. With the opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party serving to motivate those people who did vote, it was expected that the opposition would do very well.

This does not mean, however, that the American people are demanding change that contradicts their core values as measured over the last three decades by the Pew Research Center. It does mean that a majority of voters in 2010 do not approve of Obama’s and the Democrat’s agenda.

But to draw grandiose conclusions about “demands of the American people” is unsupported by reality and is typical spin-doctoring by Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers.

One problem for the Democrats in this election was that Americans do not perceive the large number of positive actions taken by Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress that follow the values held by a majority of Americans (information compiled from various sources):

  • Cut taxes — largely for the middle class — by $240 billion since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009 (Business Week)
  • Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans
  • Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids — 4 million of whom were previously uninsured
  • Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis
  • Developed a stimulus package, which includes approximately $18 billion for non-defense scientific research and development
  • Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system
  • Established a Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers
  • Passed a Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a preexisting condition, and allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ insurance until the age of 26
  • Provided tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage
  • Passed tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance
  • Expanded Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level
  • Added $4.6 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals to help veterans, especially those with PTSD
  • Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans to reduce costs to students, and protected student borrowers from exploitation by lenders
  • Expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college
  • Signed a financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of ordinary Americans
  • Cut prescription drug costs for medicare recipients by 50%
  • Passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: a $789 billion economic stimulus plan that has helped improve the economy
  • Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%

While this list is incomplete, it serves to show that much has been done to benefit ordinary Americans during Obama’s presidency, and almost none of it was done with help from Republicans.

But these actions did not serve to motivate most voting-eligible Americans to vote. Most Americans are focused on the economic devastation they have faced for the last 2 1/2 years. The Democrats did little to respond effectively to those economic problems, primarily loss of jobs, foreclosures, and the fear caused by economic insecurity. Most Americans were not motivated to vote on November 2.

I have been a vigorous critic of Obama, and will continue to be, with regard to many issues, including the wars he has continued and expanded, his unwillingness to attempt to secure affordable health insurance for all Americans, his coddling of Wall Street and the bankers, his failure to take more direct action to head off the massive foreclosures that have devastated many segments of the country, his mistaken embrace of corporatism that has led us down the road to plutocracy, his continuation of the Bush policies that diminished our liberties (such as the Patriot Act), his frequent use of the “state secrets” doctrine to hide government misconduct, and his inability to face the reality that nearly all Republicans would rather play politics than make government serve the needs and interests of the people.

Obama’s presidency has been flawed and ugly in many ways, but it is better than most of what we have had for the last 40-plus years. The Democrats are a fickle, cowardly, sorry, and despicable political party, but for those of us who care more about the welfare of ordinary Americans than the welfare of the corporations and the wealthy, Democrats are unfortunately the better alternative among the two major choices now available.

The party will not change without unrelenting pressure by progressive populists pursuing the values held by most Americans, either from within the party or from outside.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lamar W. Hankins : 2010 Elections Without the Tea-Colored Glasses

Shading the truth? Tea Partier at Tax Day Rally in Pleasanton, California, April 15, 2010. Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images.

Looking at the election
without the Tea-colored glasses

To draw grandiose conclusions about ‘demands of the American people’ is unsupported by reality and is typical spin-doctoring by Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers.

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2010

The Republican spin-doctors, talking heads, intellectuals, and factotums want the country to believe that the Republicans got it right this election. They want us to believe that Republicans are in step with the American people; that the policies they promote represent American attitudes and values.

But if we count only those who voted on November 2, they had a 52% unfavorable view of the Republican Party and a 53% unfavorable view of the Democratic Party according to research conducted by the Pew Center for the People and the Press. Like me, a majority of the voters don’t like either major party.

But the more important figures to look at to explain the voting results last Tuesday are the electorate’s views on the general direction the country is going and its views on the national economy.

Sixty-two percent of those voting believe the country is on the wrong track; 52% see the economy as “not good” and 37% see it as poor. Only 9% saw the economy as good and 1% as excellent. That 1% must be the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund operators who voted. Nearly 90% of recent voters believe that the economy is in horrible shape. Washington needs to focus on fixing the economy before it does anything else.

While I agree with the majority view, it fails to account for some realities that were largely ignored in this election and continue to be distorted by right-wing pundits. As a recent political cartoon suggests, Bush failed us for eight years by getting us into two wars, running up huge deficits, and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, and now the Republicans are trying to blame it on the black guy. No surprise there. But this recent election was not a repudiation of Obama by an “American majority,” as George Will termed it.

A majority of the “American people” did not say “no” or “yes” to anything on November 2. Only about 41.5% of the voting-eligible population voted (as contrasted with 61.6% who voted in the 2008 general election) according to the United States Election Project. These 2010 voters may have been voting for or against various messages, but they do not represent the sentiments of a majority of Americans.

The recent voters who voted against Obama and the Democrats represent slightly more than 20% of the voting-eligible public, and far less than 20% of the total population. While the Republican Tea Partiers had an impact on who voted, it remains to be seen if they will continue as a force in American politics.

The Republican Tea Partiers were as confused at the start of their movement nearly three years ago as they were on November 2. The main theme of their effort is that they represent the patriotic rebellion that came to be known, some 50 years after the event, as the Boston Tea Party.

Today’s Republican Tea Party thinks that the Boston Tea Party was all about a rebellion against King George’s tax on tea sold in the colonies. They see that Tea Party solely as a rebellion against taxes. What it was, instead, was a rebellion against the government-granted monopoly power of the East India Company, which had been exempted from the tea tax by the Tea Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1773 — an unholy alliance between government and corporate power. The tax exemption allowed the East India Company to undercut the small businesses that sold tea in the colonies.

The only first-person account of the Boston Tea Party is found in the memoir of George R. T. Hewes, published 50 years after the event because of an agreement among the participants that they would not write about it for 50 years. Most of the participants were dead by then, but Hewes penned the story in a book printed on ragged paper, A Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbour in 1773 (New York: S. Bliss, printer, 1834).

According to author Thom Hartmann, the value of the tea destroyed by the colonists in 1773 was about $1 million in today’s currency — more than a little vandalism even by today’s standards.

But the views of the Republican Tea Partiers differ widely from the views of most Americans. During the last 23 years, Pew Research Center polling has revealed that 77% of Americans believe that there is “too much power in the hands of big companies.” Between 62% and 65% of Americans, over the same time span, believe that “business corporations make too much profit.”

Despite Americans’ long-term concerns about the power of the corporations, the Tea Party Republicans have promoted, almost exclusively, the notion that the only dragon that needs to be slain is the federal government.

It is an old Republican refrain that goes hand in hand with the belief that there is no role for the federal government in promoting the “public welfare,” yet Pew research over the last three decades has shown that Americans believe by a 62% majority that the “government should guarantee food and shelter,” and from 48% to 53% have agreed that “the government should help more needy people, despite debt,” and by 63% to 71% that “government should take care of people who can’t care for themselves.”

The Republicans, including the Tea Party Republicans, enjoyed success in this past election not because the values they pushed were overwhelmingly American values, but because they were able to stimulate their voters to get to the polls, helped along by Republican-dominated media and hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate contributions made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Karl Rove political groups, and such wealthy Republicans as the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Howard Rich (a New York media mogul), John Templeton, Jr. (the now rich son of a wealthy investor), and many others.

One group that did not vote in this election was a cohort of 14 million young voters who supported Obama in 2008 but chose not to participate in this election. With the opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party serving to motivate those people who did vote, it was expected that the opposition would do very well.

This does not mean, however, that the American people are demanding change that contradicts their core values as measured over the last three decades by the Pew Research Center. It does mean that a majority of voters in 2010 do not approve of Obama’s and the Democrat’s agenda.

But to draw grandiose conclusions about “demands of the American people” is unsupported by reality and is typical spin-doctoring by Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers.

One problem for the Democrats in this election was that Americans do not perceive the large number of positive actions taken by Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress that follow the values held by a majority of Americans (information compiled from various sources):

  • Cut taxes — largely for the middle class — by $240 billion since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009 (Business Week)
  • Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans
  • Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids — 4 million of whom were previously uninsured
  • Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis
  • Developed a stimulus package, which includes approximately $18 billion for non-defense scientific research and development
  • Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system
  • Established a Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers
  • Passed a Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a preexisting condition, and allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ insurance until the age of 26
  • Provided tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage
  • Passed tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance
  • Expanded Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level
  • Added $4.6 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals to help veterans, especially those with PTSD
  • Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans to reduce costs to students, and protected student borrowers from exploitation by lenders
  • Expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college
  • Signed a financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of ordinary Americans
  • Cut prescription drug costs for medicare recipients by 50%
  • Passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: a $789 billion economic stimulus plan that has helped improve the economy
  • Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%

While this list is incomplete, it serves to show that much has been done to benefit ordinary Americans during Obama’s presidency, and almost none of it was done with help from Republicans.

But these actions did not serve to motivate most voting-eligible Americans to vote. Most Americans are focused on the economic devastation they have faced for the last 2 1/2 years. The Democrats did little to respond effectively to those economic problems, primarily loss of jobs, foreclosures, and the fear caused by economic insecurity. Most Americans were not motivated to vote on November 2.

I have been a vigorous critic of Obama, and will continue to be, with regard to many issues, including the wars he has continued and expanded, his unwillingness to attempt to secure affordable health insurance for all Americans, his coddling of Wall Street and the bankers, his failure to take more direct action to head off the massive foreclosures that have devastated many segments of the country, his mistaken embrace of corporatism that has led us down the road to plutocracy, his continuation of the Bush policies that diminished our liberties (such as the Patriot Act), his frequent use of the “state secrets” doctrine to hide government misconduct, and his inability to face the reality that nearly all Republicans would rather play politics than make government serve the needs and interests of the people.

Obama’s presidency has been flawed and ugly in many ways, but it is better than most of what we have had for the last 40-plus years. The Democrats are a fickle, cowardly, sorry, and despicable political party, but for those of us who care more about the welfare of ordinary Americans than the welfare of the corporations and the wealthy, Democrats are unfortunately the better alternative among the two major choices now available.

The party will not change without unrelenting pressure by progressive populists pursuing the values held by most Americans, either from within the party or from outside.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Eric W. Dolan : Rick Perry Says Social Security is ‘Ponzi Scheme’

Texas Gov. Rick Perry. Photo from AP.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry:
Let states opt out of Social Security

Eric W. Dolan / November 7, 2010

See “Yo, America. It’s Texas. We’ve got another one for ya!” by James Moore, Below.

Appearing on television Thursday, Texas Governor Rick Perry, a potential contender for the Republican nomination in 2012, said that he wants states to be able to opt-out of Social Security.

On CNN’s Parker/Spitzer, hosted by Democrat and former New York governor Eliot Spitzer and political columnist Kathleen Parker, Perry compared Social Security to a ponzi scheme and said that Americans want Washington to stop spending so much money.

“Here’s what I think would be a very wise thing,” he began. “In 1981, Matagorda, Brazoria, and Galveston Counties all opted out of the Social Security program for their employees. Today, their program is very, very well-funded and there is no question about whether it’s going to be funded in the out years. It’s there. That’s an option out there.”

“So, you want to let people opt out?” responded Spitzer.

“I think, let the states decide if that’s what’s best for their cities,” Perry replied.

“So the states will let people opt out of Social Security?” Spitzer asked

“They should,” the recently reelected Texas governor said.

In his forthcoming book, Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington, Perry is highly critical of federal government policies. Though not on sale until November 15th, excerpts were recently leaked to reporters.

In the book, Perry criticizes government programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance, but seems to exempt America’s largest expenditures on defense, national security, and foreign military aid.

Instead, Perry attacks social welfare programs as “fraudulent systems designed to take in a lot of money at the front and pay out none in the end.”

“This unsustainable fiscal insanity is the true legacy of Social Security and the New Deal,” he wrote.

The book is also critical of the the 17th Amendment, which established the election of senators by popular vote instead of by state legislatures.

Though posturing himself as a small-government conservative, Perry was behind a scheme to implement a “market-based approach” to the state’s highway congestion by dividing Texas into corridors split by massive toll roads financed by foreign investors. Land would have been seized by eminent domain and tolls would have been collected for 50-plus years.

While the so-called “Trans-Texas Corridor” has been effectively scrapped, critics of the plan say it is still largely in play but renamed and broken into dozens of smaller projects.

Perry was also criticized by Republicans for ordering every school-age girl in the state to receive an injection of the Guardasil vaccine, meant to protect against cervical cancer. His executive order, which the GOP-dominated legislature blocked, came after drug maker Merck doubled lobbying efforts in the state.

At the time of Perry’s reelection, Texas was running an estimated budget deficit of up to $17 billion, according to the state comptroller’s office.

Asked directly if he plans on seeking the presidency, Perry did not offer a concrete answer.

A national survey conducted by the GfK Roper consulting firm found that 90 percent of those ages 18 to 29 considered Social Security “important” and nearly 80 percent of those over 65 considered it “one of the very most important government programs.”

In addition, 80 percent of respondents said contributing to Social Security benefited “the common good.”

RAW STORY editor Stephen C. Webster contributed to this report.

Source / The RAW STORY

…Perry should learn a little history before he raises up the 1981 experiment as a model for Social Security reform. In that experiment, three Texas counties “decided to opt out of Social Security and instead to provide their public employees with a system of privatized accounts.” But this system left participants worse off than they would have been under Social Security.

Moreover, Perry’s proposal closely resembles Alaska GOP Senate candidate Joe “A Noun, a Verb and Unconstitutional” Miller’s economically impossible plan for a state takeover of Social Security and Medicare.

A workable plan to allow states to opt out of Social Security would require draconian provisions, such as a mandate that everyone must retire in the same state that they worked and paid taxes in. Otherwise, workers who are too young to receive Social Security benefits would move to an opt-out state to avoid paying Social Security taxes — and then promptly move to a state with Social Security benefits the moment they became eligible.

Eventually, the entire system would collapse under the weight of too many Social Security beneficiaries who had not paid into the system.

And this isn’t even the first time this week that Perry released a completely unworkable idea whose only virtue is that it will poll well with the Tea Party. Earlier this week, Perry released excerpts from his forthcoming book that attack the Constitution for allowing a national income tax and for requiring senators to be chosen through a radical process known as an “election.”

Ian Millhiser / ThinkProgress / Truthout / November 6, 2010

Dream team? Rick Perry and Sarah Palin during Perry campaign rally February 7, 2010, in Cypress, Texas. Photo by Dave Einsel / Getty Images.

Yo, America. It’s Texas.
We’ve got another one for ya!

By James Moore / November 3, 2010

There are many people hoping the GOP chooses Sarah Palin to run against President Obama and we can finally get a definitive answer to this nagging question of national self-immolation. I do not believe we will be able to make that choice. The electorate tends to dance with radicals and buy them drinks but generally lets them go home alone to have more scary dreams.

Well, here is another frightening notion to all y’all from your friends down here in Texas: President Rick Perry.

Perry painted the state an even brighter red, in part, because his democratic opponent, former Houston Mayor Bill White, suffered from the heartbreak of ineffectuality. Nothing he tried inspired and his strongest messages were, “I’m not Rick Perry,” and “Rick Perry has been governor long enough.”

Coyote-killer Rick, however, was taking credit for the state’s geography and climate, which have been essential to job and business growth. Regardless of what the governor argues, no one is coming here as a result of his or his party’s policies. Property taxes are the worst in the country and the schools that are funded with that money are overwhelmingly mediocre, which has led to a scandalous charter school program.

Roads are falling apart, state parks are suffering decaying infrastructure, our air is the dirtiest in the country, mass transit is resisted by leadership, and we are ranked 48th or 49th in every government consideration other than raising up unqualified presidential candidates.

Perry might be a little light in his Lucchese’s but he has shown a great facility for ignoring standards and even the law without enduring penalty. On the same day his reelection filled the column inches and the web site of the Austin paper, there was also a report that the governor was refusing to release a copy of a $4.5 million contract with the state. The money went to a startup technology company founded by one of Perry’s major donors.

The American Statesman filed a Freedom of Information request but Perry’s office said no and ignored the fact that those millions are tax dollars and the manner in which they are spent is subject to public disclosure.

How money is used and where it comes from makes the kid from Paint Rock a bit nervous, unless, of course, he is the beneficiary. He has become inexplicably wealthy during his term while earning less than $200,000 annually.

Conversely, he has turned down hundreds of millions in education dollars from the federal government that would have provided improvements to Texas schools because he claimed there were “strings attached.” There were: good grades.

The red run of Election Day does more good for Perry’s opaque ambition than it does Sarah Palin’s. As he brags about having the best job in America, the governor begins a national tour for his slim book about being fed up with the feds.

Answers to softball questions will saturate the airwaves from friendly media over the next few weeks and there will be talk of his Texas mandate and it how it compares to the whopping win George W. Bush earned in his race against former Texas Land Commissioner Garry Mauro.

The pretext to begin circulating Perry’s name for a presidential run will be easily established and the Tea Partiers that he energized with his irresponsible talk of secession will slowly turn pragmatic and confront the question of who can win in 2012.

Palin may not have been the personality who sent those Tea Partiers to the polls but she loves them and they have affection for her. That attraction, however, cannot be consummated because there will never be enough Tea Partiers to elect a president. A compromise is inevitable since the GOP cannot field an electable candidate without energizing the party’s Diaspora, which has tipped way right.

What’s a bad speller to do? Palin will do well in several early primary states and if the GOP wants to have any chance against President Obama it will have to engineer a ticket.

No matter what either party suggests, American presidential politics is more about viscera than intellect and issues. Uncertain voters tend to make decisions based upon charisma and aesthetics. Few people trust political ads and when they are busy trying to pay down credit card debt or keep the mortgage banker at bay they do not have time to read party platforms or study issues on candidate web pages. Party activists are the only people paying attention to campaigns until the last few weeks. Which leads us back to Rick Perry.

The GOP is already spending time trying to find a prospect to get Sarah to act a bit more politically demure. Their options are limited. Haley Barbour, the well-wired governor of Mississippi (State motto: Thank god for Texas) has the round face and weary drawl of an old school southern pol. As connected as he is to governors’ mansions and DC insiders, he would have a tough task against Obama if for no other reason than aesthetics.

Mitt Romney is arguably too polished and too Mormon. Whether they will acknowledge it or not there are millions of Christians in the U.S. that still view Mormonism as a cult and it hurts Romney’s chances. (The John Kennedy and first Catholic president analogy is not relevant.)

Jeb Bush will not be able to help himself and will pursue the White House because he wants to prove he is the “smart one” in his family but there are no more than two dozen voters that want to see another Bush or Clinton on a national ticket.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will likely enter the picture as an independent and burn enough money to make E-Bay’s big bucks Meg Whitman look fiscally prudent but he will not travel well in the south; except for Florida.

The compromise ticket will be Perry and Palin. They will make a lovely camera-ready couple from the union’s two biggest states. (The Hair Pair?) Team Tea Party has fondness for both of them and the mainstream party machine can convince donors that Sarah will never get her hands on the nuclear launch codes but that she is necessary to elect the ticket.

The only complication is Karl Rove’s role. He is still ginning up cash and running a big fund-raising operation and he has offended Palin and the Tea Party. Karl, who does not seem to be able to keep friends, led Perry’s campaign when he won his first statewide office in Texas but there has been an alienation of affection. Rove supported Sen. Kay Hutchison in her race for governor against Perry in the Republican primary. Karl will need to be taught to heel but that should not be a problem since he has proven in the past that victory and money are more important than any principle.

So, there you go, America; since you are too busy to get informed we will just turn this into American Idol or maybe Dancing with the Stars. Nothing to read. Just use your cell phone or your remote to vote. Have fun!!!

And we will go ahead and start grooming you another goofball down here in Texas.

[James Moore is an Emmy award-winning former national TV news correspondent and a New York Times best-selling author who now works as a communications strategist, writer, and political analyst.]

Source / MooreThink

Thanks to Steve Russell / The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Jonah Raskin : Prop 19 Up in Smoke

Photo by Lucretious / stock.xchng.

Up in smoke:
Cannabis initiative post mortem

By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO — I spent Election Day at Prop 19 Headquarters in Oakland, California, and witnessed the final, tumultuous hours of the campaign to legalize marijuana. Not legalize it once and for all. To be precise, legalize possession of one ounce or less by a person over the age of 21, and cultivation in a 25-square-foot area.

Fifty four percent of the voters cast ballots against 19 and 46% of the voters cast ballots for it. It’s hard to argue with those percentages and, if you believe that the number of votes cast for and against is the crucial factor, than 19 lost.

That’s what big media is saying and that’s what law enforcers are also saying. The supporters of 19 have been saying that 19 won, that the 3,350,000 or so people who voted for it shows that marijuana is here to stay, and that sooner or later marijuana will be legalized.

“Demographics, economics and principle all favor the ultimate demise of marijuana prohibition,” Ethan Nadelmann, the founder and executive director of the Drug Policy Alliance, said soon after the votes were counted. He added, “Marijuana isn’t going to legalize itself, but momentum is building like never before among Americans across the political spectrum who think it’s time to take marijuana out of the closet and out of the criminal justice system.”

Nadelmann is absolutely right when he says that marijuana won’t legalize itself. Indeed, it will take ingenuity, organization, and new strategies to persuade some of the nearly 4 million people who voted against 19 to change their minds.

In the 1960s, momentum to legalize pot built like never before, and hippies predicted that it would be legalized very soon. But that didn’t happen. The same could happen again, unless there are profound changes in strategy by the pro-legalization movement.

By and large, law enforcers want marijuana to remain illegal. By and large, commercial marijuana growers, and their friends and neighbors in California, want it to remain illegal too. The police don’t want to lose their funding and their jobs; the growers don’t want a drop in the price of pot and a dent in their pocketbooks.

Prop 19 was poorly written; even advocates for legalization pointed to its inconsistencies, legalese, and confused wording. Prop 19 left it up to individual counties in California to decided whether to implement the measure. Citizens in one county would be able to have an ounce or less if they were 21 years of age or older, while citizens in an adjacent county would not have the same legal protections. That was a recipe for disaster.

Shortly before Election Day, former Mexican President Vicente Fox commented on 19 in a radio interview. “How great it would be for California to set this example,” he said. “May God let it pass. The other U.S. states will have to follow step.” His sentiments were widely appreciated in the movement to end the war on marijuana.

All around the world, the citizens of the world look to California to set a positive example, and California did set the example for medical marijuana, and 13 other states followed its lead. It might not be helpful, however, to look to California to lead the way again. Other states, such as Colorado, have implemented medical marijuana in cleaner, clearer ways that California.

American Puritanism, the American work ethic, and the American suspicion of pleasure and joy also contributed to the Prohibition of marijuana. Millions of Californians don’t like the idea of their fellow citizens smoking pot at parties, driving on pot, arriving at work stoned, having sex stoned, and eating stoned. To make marijuana legal it will also mean eroding American Puritanism — no easy feat.

What seems especially noteworthy of the Prop 19 campaign is that many in law enforcement came out in favor of legalization. They went against the tide of law enforcers who think of marijuana as the drug of choice of the hippies, and who are still fighting the battles of the 1960s.

Meanwhile, in the wake of the defeat of 19, very little seems to have changed in California in the marijuana world. Stoners, heads, and medical marijuana patients are rolling joints and smoking them. Marijuana growers are planting seeds; dispensaries are selling pot. Doctors are recommending marijuana to their patients.

Prop 19 did profoundly change attitudes, and yet now that the election is over it’s as though 19 never happened. After so much time and effort, it’s hard to believe. Prop 19 might be a foundation to build upon, and yet given the volatile political scene and political amnesi, it seems likely that the next time a pro-marijuana measure comes along, activists will have to start all over again with a clean slate.

That might not be a bad idea.

[Jonah Raskin is the author of Field Days: A Year of Farming, Eating and Drinking Wine in California and a professor at Sonoma State University.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

BOOKS / Rabbi Arthur Waskow : Marge Piercy: Science Fiction as Prophetic Vision


Marge Piercy’s ‘He, She and It’:
Science fiction as prophetic vision

By Rabbi Arthur Waskow / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2010

[He, She and It by Marge Piercy (Knopf, 1991); Hardcover; 446 pp.]

Marge Piercy’s novel He, She and It appeared almost 20 years ago. My review appeared in Tikkun magazine in 1992. During these years, many aspects of her novel have loomed more prescient — even prophetic in the sense not of prediction but of accurate warnings spoken by the Spirit.

Anyone concerned with corporate domination, with global scorching, with feminism, with Middle East peace, with the renewal of Jewish peoplehood and Judaism, with the deeper meaning of computer technology and “artificial intelligence,” with Kabbalah, with the nature of humankind — will be drawn to think and feel more deeply by reading her novel. And as I wrote then, it is a novel — joy and sorrow in tales of love and failure, moral conflicts embodied in four-dimensional human brings.

Why do I want to share the review now? We are standing today on the brink of a great choice — for America, for the planet. This book helps us to look across the brink of disaster into a world scorched and flooded, a world nakedly controlled by corporations in outright feudalism, a world in which nevertheless, technological creativity is matched with spiritual creativity.

After a passage from the review itself (the full original review is on-line), I have added a note on my own personal relationship to the book that I did not discover till years later.

Androgyny and Beyond:
‘He, She and It’ by Marge Piercy

I began to read science fiction when I was 12 years old, just a few months after the atomic bomb destroyed Hiroshima, and I’ve never stopped. It wasn’t gee-whiz gadgets that attracted me; it was the dark visions and the rainbow cloudbursts of imagined social transformation, dystopian and utopian. My commitment to healing the world has been shaped as much by science fiction as by those other Prophetic writers whom I discovered much later — Isaiah, Marx, Buber, Heschel.

All that time I have been waiting for Marge Piercy’s new book. Not quite consciously waiting, you understand. Not even in my dreams could I have created this book, but in my heart and kishkes, I’ve been waiting.

So what is so delicious? First of all, it’s Jewish science fiction. Feminist Jewish science fiction. Feminist Kabbalistic Jewish science fiction. Feminist Kabbalistic kibbutznik Jewish science fiction.

Not just casually Jewish, but rooted in a sardonic version of Jewish mysticism and in the profoundly Jewish spiritual wrestle about what social justice means in a world where the Messiah is ever-coming, ever-vanishing.

Feminist, yes, like all of Piercy’s work. The story of the Golem of Prague – that famous artificial “human” being clumsily created by a great rabbi five centuries ago — is at the heart of Piercy’s tale. But the Golem takes a different form when his tale is for the first time told by a woman, Malkah, one of Piercy’s heroines.

The communitarian ethos of the kibbutz is the air that Piercy’s story breathes, but the kibbutz is a different place when it is transformed by a feminist politics and culture. And the science of “artificial intelligence” is transformed by a feminist outlook.

Piercy’s kibbutz arises not in Israel but on the surviving hills of what we know as Boston. Surviving because much of the American coastline has been inundated by a new Flood, a surge of ocean from the melted ice caps, the result of global warming. It’s the mid-twenty-first century, and a lot we take for granted is gone.

The United States, for instance. It collapsed, like the — what was it? –oh yeah, the Soviet Union. The world is ruled by several gigantic corporations that have divided it into feudal fiefdoms. There are a few free cities, and the free Jewish town of Tikva (Hope) is one of them.

The Middle East has also vanished. Not just a government or two, a sovereignty or two, but the entire region, oil fields and fig trees and mountain goats and peoples. It’s the Black Zone now, an empty blotch on the map. Jerusalem is a wilderness of fused green glass, the thermonuclear casualty that set off a totally ruinous bio-chemical-nuclear war.

It turns out that there may be secret survivors — is anybody as stubborn and tenacious as Israelis and Palestinians? As women? But that’s a thread for you to follow when you read the book.

Piercy does give us some gee-whiz gadgets: computer networks deft enough to create planetary virtual realities, through which the corporations can struggle to invade Tikva, through which Tikva can struggle to defend itself, and through which people who explore them can transform themselves — and die. And cyborgs — cybernetic organisms, fusions of computer programming and biology, real live quasi-humans, with intelligence for sure, and maybe, just maybe, with free will. Or maybe not.

Can a cyborg be a citizen and vote in the town meeting of Tikva? Can a cyborg be a Jew and count in a minyan? And here is the neat and powerful question posed by Piercy’s fusion of feminism with science fiction: Who or what is a creature that is programmed with both a woman’s and a man’s mentality? Can a spiritual androgyne be a human? Or is the real question whether anyone who is not androgynous can be fully human?

Piercy’s androgynous cyborg may be the only fully human creature in the world. His name — in outward anatomy this cyborg is fully male, though inwardly also the He/She/It of the title — is Yod, the name of the tenth letter of the Hebrew alphabet. (This model was the tenth in a series of attempts to build a useful cyborg.) But “Yod” is also the first letter of God’s name, which is sometimes written as Yod-Yod. And it is close to the Yid that in Yiddish is the generic word for Jew.

Note the wonderful linguistic problems that Piercy introduces. Yod is the newest model of a cyborg, like the latest car, clearly an invention, a machine. Yet Yod has overtones of the ultra-human, much more fully in the Divine Image than anyone since the original Adam, who was made in Our Image, said God, in the Image of God, male and female, androgynous as God is androgynous. He, She and It.

This is a novel of ideas, but not only of ideas. By introducing a being who is both male and female, both human and machine, Piercy has jiggled and joggled the relationships of all the characters. Not only the ideas, but the people, are delicious. They make love, they get jealous, they fight for custody of their children and for control of their creations, they rebel against their bosses and comply with the rules, they take risks and die and go half-mad with grief.

The book is told from the alternating standpoints of Malkah, a tough and gentle grandmother who is sexually alive and technologically ingenious, and Shira, her bright and frightened granddaughter who is relearning her way toward love and a sense of her own power in the world. It is Malkah who has made sure that Yod has a full womanly as well as manly programming, and who searches for some way to tell him of his own ancestors. (Notice how Jewish is this desire: “Tell it to your child on that day,” says the Passover Haggada.)

But who, or what, is the ancestor of a cyborg? Malkah decides it is the Golem of medieval Prague, that doomed subhero to whom, in Jewish legend, the great Rabbi Judah Loew gave life and a mission to protect the Jewish people from pogroms. The story enters Yod’s consciousness at a level quite different from computer programming, a level that involves what seems to be free will; and after hearing the story, Yod assumes the triumph and tragedy of carrying the Golem’s being to a higher level.

This transmutation of the Golem story becomes a metaphor for Piercy’s own work. If the Golem is Yod’s ancestor, then the Golem story is ancestor to Piercy’s novel. Piercy in effect both locates the Golem story as a kind of early Jewish science fiction, and places her own work in the stream of mythic Judaism.

How can Piercy dare to see a tiny Jewish town in such a bold light? I think it is because her Jewishness and her feminism fuse into a new vision. The Jews are too few to shake the world; women are many. Women are too diffuse and too diverse to make a counter-community; Jews know how. Counting noses on the face of the earth, the Jews are just about the tiniest imaginable community with a transformative vision; women could be the largest. But they cannot transform the earth alone, and they cannot transform it if they work alone, as individuals.

Piercy is saying that women must create communities of women and men in conscious connection with the earth, communities that are intimate and participatory, that so thoroughly share an approach to work, sexuality, money, and spirituality that they can stand together against the powers that be.

The struggle to heal the world may well take generations, Piercy warns, during which time even more of the world may be deeply wounded. An ancient Jewish wisdom for a wider human future: Only painful birth pangs can give birth to the days of Messiah.

Years after the publication of this review, years after Piercy had taught several summers at the Elat Chayyim retreat center where Phyllis Berman (not yet a rabbi) was the director of the summer program, Phyllis and I had Marge as a visitor for dinner. The conversation turned to He, She and It, and I said again how much I loved it.

Marge said, “Did you ever notice that at the end of the book, among the acknowledgements, I thanked you?” “Yes,” I said, “But I never understood it. It said something about my having clued you into some aspects of Kabbalah, but I can’t remember doing that — or even in those days, being able to.”

“Yes,” she said. “Do you also remember that way back in the mid-’60s, I was a Visiting Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, where you were a Resident Fellow?

“Yes,” I said, scrunching up my face to recall. “So?”

“You asked people at IPS to look at about 50 pages of a novel you were trying to write. It began with a nuclear attack that destroyed Jerusalem and led to the collapse of both the USSR and the USA, and it included the creation of an independent Jewish commonwealth in New England.”

“Oh My God! Yes, it was around 1965. I was trying to write a novel in the form of letters from and to a future me. I called it “Notes from 1999.” I remember I imagined my grown-up daughter killed when a U.S. Navy sub unintentionally destroyed Jerusalem. Maybe that image was already a dead end. I never got anywhere with the book.”

“I know. But I kept the idea as a seed in my head, and it sprouted into He, She, and It.”

“Ohhh. Oh. My. God.

“Thank God you wrote it. I couldn’t write a novel. You could. You did. Thank God!”

[Rabbi Arthur Waskow is the director of The Shalom Center. He is co-author of The Tent of Abraham: Stories of Hope and Peace for Jews, Christians, and Muslims; author of Godwrestling, Round 2 and Down-to-Earth Judaism; and editor of Torah of the Earth (two volumes, eco-Jewish thought from earliest Torah to our own generation). These pioneering books on eco-Judiasm are available at discount from “Shouk Shalom,” The Shalom center’s online bookstore.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Lamar W. Hankins : 2010 Elections Without the Tea-Colored Glasses

Shading the truth? Tea Partier at Tax Day Rally in Pleaston, California, April 15, 2010. Photo by Justin Sullivan / Getty Images.

Looking at the election
without the Tea-colored glasses

To draw grandiose conclusions about ‘demands of the American people’ is unsupported by reality and is typical spin-doctoring by Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers.

By Lamar W. Hankins / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2010

The Republican spin-doctors, talking heads, intellectuals, and factotums want the country to believe that the Republicans got it right this election. They want us to believe that Republicans are in step with the American people; that the policies they promote represent American attitudes and values.

But if we count only those who voted on November 2, they had a 52% unfavorable view of the Republican Party and a 53% unfavorable view of the Democratic Party according to research conducted by the Pew Center for the People and the Press. Like me, a majority of the voters don’t like either major party.

But the more important figures to look at to explain the voting results last Tuesday are the electorate’s views on the general direction the country is going and its views on the national economy.

Sixty-two percent of those voting believe the country is on the wrong track; 52% see the economy as “not good” and 37% see it as poor. Only 9% saw the economy as good and 1% as excellent. That 1% must be the Wall Street bankers and hedge fund operators who voted. Nearly 90% of recent voters believe that the economy is in horrible shape. Washington needs to focus on fixing the economy before it does anything else.

While I agree with the majority view, it fails to account for some realities that were largely ignored in this election and continue to be distorted by right-wing pundits. As a recent political cartoon suggests, Bush failed us for eight years by getting us into two wars, running up huge deficits, and giving tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans, and now the Republicans are trying to blame it on the black guy. No surprise there. But this recent election was not a repudiation of Obama by an “American majority,” as George Will termed it.

A majority of the “American people” did not say “no” or “yes” to anything on November 2. Only about 41.5% of the voting-eligible population voted (as contrasted with 61.6% who voted in the 2008 general election) according to the United States Election Project. These 2010 voters may have been voting for or against various messages, but they do not represent the sentiments of a majority of Americans.

The recent voters who voted against Obama and the Democrats represent slightly more than 20% of the voting-eligible public, and far less than 20% of the total population. While the Republican Tea Partiers had an impact on who voted, it remains to be seen if they will continue as a force in American politics.

The Republican Tea Partiers were as confused at the start of their movement nearly three years ago as they were on November 2. The main theme of their effort is that they represent the patriotic rebellion that came to be known, some 50 years after the event, as the Boston Tea Party.

Today’s Republican Tea Party thinks that the Boston Tea Party was all about a rebellion against King George’s tax on tea sold in the colonies. They see that Tea Party solely as a rebellion against taxes. What it was, instead, was a rebellion against the government-granted monopoly power of the East India Company, which had been exempted from the tea tax by the Tea Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1773 — an unholy alliance between government and corporate power. The tax exemption allowed the East India Company to undercut the small businesses that sold tea in the colonies.

The only first-person account of the Boston Tea Party is found in the memoir of George R. T. Hewes, published 50 years after the event because of an agreement among the participants that they would not write about it for 50 years. Most of the participants were dead by then, but Hewes penned the story in a book printed on ragged paper, A Retrospect of the Boston Tea-Party, with a Memoir of George R. T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbour in 1773 (New York: S. Bliss, printer, 1834).

According to author Thom Hartmann, the value of the tea destroyed by the colonists in 1773 was about $1 million in today’s currency — more than a little vandalism even by today’s standards.

But the views of the Republican Tea Partiers differ widely from the views of most Americans. During the last 23 years, Pew Research Center polling has revealed that 77% of Americans believe that there is “too much power in the hands of big companies.” Between 62% and 65% of Americans, over the same time span, believe that “business corporations make too much profit.”

Despite Americans’ long-term concerns about the power of the corporations, the Tea Party Republicans have promoted, almost exclusively, the notion that the only dragon that needs to be slain is the federal government.

It is an old Republican refrain that goes hand in hand with the belief that there is no role for the federal government in promoting the “public welfare,” yet Pew research over the last three decades has shown that Americans believe by a 62% majority that the “government should guarantee food and shelter,” and from 48% to 53% have agreed that “the government should help more needy people, despite debt,” and by 63% to 71% that “government should take care of people who can’t care for themselves.”

The Republicans, including the Tea Party Republicans, enjoyed success in this past election not because the values they pushed were overwhelmingly American values, but because they were able to stimulate their voters to get to the polls, helped along by Republican-dominated media and hundreds of millions of dollars in corporate contributions made by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Karl Rove political groups, and such wealthy Republicans as the oil billionaire Koch brothers, Howard Rich (a New York media mogul), John Templeton, Jr. (the now rich son of a wealthy investor), and many others.

One group that did not vote in this election was a cohort of 14 million young voters who supported Obama in 2008 but chose not to participate in this election. With the opposition to Obama and the Democratic Party serving to motivate those people who did vote, it was expected that the opposition would do very well.

This does not mean, however, that the American people are demanding change that contradicts their core values as measured over the last three decades by the Pew Research Center. It does mean that a majority of voters in 2010 do not approve of Obama’s and the Democrat’s agenda.

But to draw grandiose conclusions about “demands of the American people” is unsupported by reality and is typical spin-doctoring by Tea Party Republicans and their fellow travelers.

One problem for the Democrats in this election was that Americans do not perceive the large number of positive actions taken by Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress that follow the values held by a majority of Americans (information compiled from various sources):

  • Cut taxes — largely for the middle class — by $240 billion since taking office on Jan. 20, 2009 (Business Week)
  • Provided the Department of Veterans Affairs with more than $1.4 billion to improve services to America’s Veterans
  • Signed the Children’s Health Insurance Reauthorization Act, which provides health care to 11 million kids — 4 million of whom were previously uninsured
  • Signed the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act, the first comprehensive legislation aimed at improving the lives of Americans living with paralysis
  • Developed a stimulus package, which includes approximately $18 billion for non-defense scientific research and development
  • Signed the Weapons Systems Acquisition Reform Act to stop fraud and wasteful spending in the defense procurement and contracting system
  • Established a Credit Card Bill of Rights, preventing credit card companies from imposing arbitrary rate increases on customers
  • Passed a Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a preexisting condition, and allowing children to remain covered by their parents’ insurance until the age of 26
  • Provided tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage
  • Passed tax credits for up to 29 million individuals to help pay for health insurance
  • Expanded Medicaid to all individuals under age 65 with incomes up to 133% of the federal poverty level
  • Added $4.6 billion to the Veterans Administration budget to recruit and retain more mental health professionals to help veterans, especially those with PTSD
  • Eliminated subsidies to private lender middlemen of student loans to reduce costs to students, and protected student borrowers from exploitation by lenders
  • Expanded Pell grants, which help low-income students pay for college
  • Signed a financial reform law establishing a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to look out for the interests of ordinary Americans
  • Cut prescription drug costs for medicare recipients by 50%
  • Passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: a $789 billion economic stimulus plan that has helped improve the economy
  • Increased funding for national parks and forests by 10%

While this list is incomplete, it serves to show that much has been done to benefit ordinary Americans during Obama’s presidency, and almost none of it was done with help from Republicans.

But these actions did not serve to motivate most voting-eligible Americans to vote. Most Americans are focused on the economic devastation they have faced for the last 2 1/2 years. The Democrats did little to respond effectively to those economic problems, primarily loss of jobs, foreclosures, and the fear caused by economic insecurity. Most Americans were not motivated to vote on November 2.

I have been a vigorous critic of Obama, and will continue to be, with regard to many issues, including the wars he has continued and expanded, his unwillingness to attempt to secure affordable health insurance for all Americans, his coddling of Wall Street and the bankers, his failure to take more direct action to head off the massive foreclosures that have devastated many segments of the country, his mistaken embrace of corporatism that has led us down the road to plutocracy, his continuation of the Bush policies that diminished our liberties (such as the Patriot Act), his frequent use of the “state secrets” doctrine to hide government misconduct, and his inability to face the reality that nearly all Republicans would rather play politics than make government serve the needs and interests of the people.

Obama’s presidency has been flawed and ugly in many ways, but it is better than most of what we have had for the last 40-plus years. The Democrats are a fickle, cowardly, sorry, and despicable political party, but for those of us who care more about the welfare of ordinary Americans than the welfare of the corporations and the wealthy, Democrats are unfortunately the better alternative among the two major choices now available.

The party will not change without unrelenting pressure by progressive populists pursuing the values held by most Americans, either from within the party or from outside.

[Lamar W. Hankins, a former San Marcos city attorney, is also a columnist for the San Marcos Mercury. This article © Freethought San Marcos, Lamar W. Hankins.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Leave a comment

Marc Estrin : Spanking Your Inner Child

Inner Child. Image from Integral Options Cafe.

Have you spanked
your inner child today?

By Marc Estrin / The Rag Blog / November 7, 2010

I’m just beginning the week run of rehearsals and performances in the pit orchestra for Peter Pan. The Lyric Theater production will be extremely professional as usual, and attended by full houses of an enthusiastic community.

I play in these musicals not because I think the dramatic art is great or the music profound, but because they are such wonderful examples of communities coming together — 200 people working for months without pay — to produce a high-spirited event which several thousand people will enjoy.

Nevertheless, I have to admit being irritated by the very thought of Peter Pan. The unthinking enthusiasm with which his motto, “I won’t grow up,” is greeted reflects the destructive childishness, and embrace of that childishness, epidemic in the American public.

And here I’m not thinking of the occasional comico-pathetic gray-hair who earnestly exhorts me to honor my inner child as he or she does, and then trips blithely away in some psychic equivalent of tie dyes and bellbottoms. Rather I am concerned with the rampant embrace of the trivial and superficial.

This pattern has some innocent manifestations such as the recent adult enthusiasm for various children’s books, business-suited women carrying them proudly underarm and assuring questioners that they are “really for adults, too.” The infantilization of the reading public — bad for serious authors, but not all that sinister. Far more so is the dumbing down of news and other information, and the substitution of infotainment and celebrity.

I was reminded of this recently when Obama walked on stage, pre-election, at the Daily Show. The audience cheered and clapped — but in a way far beyond the polite, enthusiastic greetings routinely offered to even villains and semi-villains. The adulation went on and on. Obama tried four times to stop it, and finally just stood there smiling and waving occasionally.

Now remember, Jon Stewart’s audience is made up mostly of lefty liberals who enjoy his satirical critique of the powers that be.

Nevertheless, this very audience offered up an unstoppable standing ovation for a man who stands against everything they presumably stand for: a man who is currently answerable for the worldwide death and starvation of millions; the many domestic losses of home and job; the destruction of climate and disarmament conferences; the ever-increasing expenditures on ever-increasing wars; the now commonplace practice of torture; the undercutting of public healthcare; the shielding of executive crimes past and present; the hoarding of executive power; the resurgence of the nuclear industry; the embrace of Israel’s brutal policies in Palestine; the ever-increasing inequality of wealth; and now, post-election, the inevitable strangulation and death of democratic government.

For starters.

Yet the children cheered him, and cheered him, and cheered him, because he is the president and they were in the same room, behaving not unlike swooning teenage girls at early Beatles concerts. Clap if you believe in fairies. I was embarrassed for them.

Ice Cream Boy. Image from IceScreamer.

Burlington, Vermont, where I live, is the birthplace and main home of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Their motto, plastered all over bumper stickers, and inside their Burlington store, is IF IT’S NOT FUN, WHY DO IT? I’ve often pondered this question. And I’ve pondered alongside it another bumper sticker common in our area: Emma Goldman’s face next to the line “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be part of your revolution.”

Is this a food fight between bumper stickers, or are they finally on the same side? Are they both exhorting us to honor our inner children? I decided to look further into the Goldman quote, and this is what I found — in her autobiography, Living My Life:

At the dances I was one of the most untiring and gayest. One evening a cousin of Sasha, a young boy, took me aside. With a grave face, as if he were about to announce the death of a dear comrade, he whispered to me that it did not behoove an agitator to dance. Certainly not with such reckless abandon, anyway. It was undignified for one who was on the way to become a force in the anarchist movement. My frivolity would only hurt the Cause.

I grew furious at the impudent interference of the boy. I told him to mind his own business. I was tired of having the Cause constantly thrown into my face. I did not believe that a Cause which stood for a beautiful ideal, for anarchism, for release and freedom from convention and prejudice, should demand the denial of life and joy. I insisted that our Cause could not expect me to become a nun and that the movement would not be turned into a cloister.

f it meant that, I did not want it. I want freedom, the right to self-expression, everybody’s right to beautiful, radiant things. Anarchism meant that to me, and I would live it in spite of the whole world — prisons, persecution, everything. Yes, even in spite of the condemnation of my own closest comrades I would live my beautiful ideal. (p.56)

This statement feels significantly different from “IF IT’S NOT FUN WHY DO IT?,” for behind the joy and exuberance, Emma embraces a larger ideal to be joyful about. The playfulness of Ben & Jerry’s, its flavors, its graphics, is more about honoring one’s inner child. and putting out a lot of money — with a smile — for an ice cream cone.

I must say that the figure of Peter Pan is more complex then his motto song “I won’t grow up” might imply. In Barrie’s book, and even in the musical, Peter is a semi-tragic figure, sentenced to repeated loss of the friends who do grow up to leave him, responsible for the parental pain of losing the children kidnapped, and the nostalgic regret of losing one’s childhood.

Peter is as much the villain of the piece as its hero. He is boastful, selfish, distructive, and unreflective. And naturally, the children abducted to Neverland give him a standing ovation at his every appearance.

While I may be a churlish old grouch, I really do think that we, the kidnapped, had better begin to honor our inner adults, and not continually embrace childishness — usually at the expense of others, and ourselves.

Hope is not a method, nor is belief in fairies.

[Marc Estrin is a writer, activist, and cellist, living in Burlington, Vermont. His novels, Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa, The Education of Arnold Hitler, Golem Song, and The Lamentations of Julius Marantz have won critical acclaim. His memoir, Rehearsing With Gods: Photographs and Essays on the Bread & Puppet Theater (with Ron Simon, photographer) won a 2004 theater book of the year award. He is currently working on a novel about the dead Tchaikovsky.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Kate Braun : (First Quarter) Moon Musings

Photo from I am marlon / Flickr.


Moon musings:

First Quarter Moon

(November 7-November 12, 2010
)

By Kate Braun / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2010

This phase of the moon is a time to act, to start new activities and projects, to work on things that require growth. Sunset is the best time to activate whatever energies you choose to work with, but preparation may begin earlier in the day as a first quarter moon always rises at noon.

One interesting activity would be to make a God’s Eye that would be used as a facilitator in your meditations during this moon-phase. Ideally you would use yew branches or twigs, but any wood is acceptable. Use white, red, blue, orange, and yellow (in that order) yarn or ribbon to weave the design.



Hold the God’s Eye while you perform this centering ritual: Sitting comfortably, take seven easy yoga-breaths (in through the nose, out through the mouth, gently and smoothly with no huffing, puffing, or gasping) as you concentrate on filling all the empty spaces in your body with each inhalation and emptying those spaces with each exhalation.

When you complete these seven breaths, you will be in an Alpha-rhythm, the best place to be for meditation. You may use the center of your God’s Eye as your focus-point.

If you celebrate on Sunday you should include rituals for money, health, and friendship-related matters in your projects. On Monday, the focus should be more on your Self, seeking inspiration and change. On Tuesday, some concentration on protecting property would be appropriate. On Wednesday, make career aspirations a focus of your intent. On Thursday, concentrate on money-making endeavors. On Friday, some of your energies should center on your personal feelings, especially where love and attraction are concerned.

Eat spicy food such as tamales, nachos, and tacos. Include the cheese of your choice as you assemble these foods. Drink tea, either black or green, and water. Don’t let yourself become too heavy with food. You need energy to properly connect with Lady Moon, not to be so well-fed that you feel the need for a siesta.

Whether you are alone or among friends, conclude the evening by saying aloud:

May I be at peace

May my heart remain open

May I awaken to the light of my own true nature

[Kate Braun’s website is www.tarotbykatebraun.com. If you know any moon lore that you would like to share with Kate, please send it to her at kate_braun2000@yahoo.com.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

BOOKS / Jonah Raskin : Schneir’s ‘Final Verdict’ on Rosenbergs Offers No Such Thing


Walter Schneir’s ‘Final Verdict’:
New book on Rosenbergs fails to deliver

By Jonah Raskin / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2010

[Final Verdict: What Really Happened in the Rosenberg Case by Walter Schneir; Preface and Afterword by Miriam Schneir (Melville House, 2010); Hardcover; 203 pages; $23.95.]

Final Verdict, the book Walter Schneir was writing when he died, and before he could finish it, came to me highly recommended and I can understand why. For students and scholars who have followed the case of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg — the New York Jewish couple who were executed in 1953 as spies for the Russians — this book offers tantalizing stories and anecdotes.

It certainly keeps the case alive, but in no way does it close the book on the Rosenbergs, and in that sense the title is misleading. So is the subtitle: “What really happened in the Rosenberg case.” Whatever did happen, this book never makes clear. Let me explain.

There is no “final verdict” in Final Verdict; there are only more questions, more doubts, and more disquieting revelations. Here are some of the words that Schneir uses that reflect his perspective on the Rosenberg case: “baffling,” “mystery,” “frustrating,” “incomplete,” “presumably,” and more.

All too often, he writes phrases such as “I cannot resist wondering,” “for reasons unknown,” and “I have often pondered the question.” While they might be taken as the author’s own authentic disclosures about his troubled journey, they hardly inspire confidence about his methods and his conclusion. Final Verdict is a jumble and a mumble.

Reading Walter’s Schneir’s last book — it comes with a preface and an afterword by his widow, Miriam Schneir — led me to the conclusion that there will never be a complete and satisfactory explanation of who the Rosenbergs really were and what they might or might not have done.

As Walter Schneir himself points out, the U.S. Government lied about the Rosenbergs from the time they were arrested in the summer of 1950 until the time they were executed in 1953. The U.S. government refused to release their files for decades. Lies were piled on top of lies on top of lies until truths were buried probably forever. The Russians kept files too, but they’re hardly more credible or reliable than those of the FBI.

The Rosenbergs, Schneir says, lied too. They affirmed their innocence, and denied their guilt, though all of the evidence today makes it clear that Julius Rosenberg was a spy for the Soviet Union in the 1940s.

Julius Rosenberg lied, and so did Ethel. That they didn’t steal the secret of the atomic bomb — the crime they were accused of committing — is clear (as well as the fact that there was no single “secret” of the bomb) and has been for a long time.

That they were framed, and then wrongly and unjustly executed has also been apparent for a long time and is hardly new, or news, though Schneir tries hard to frame his story as a final revelation, the key that finally unlocks the Rosenberg riddle

Sadly, Final Verdict is a book by a scholar so caught up in his own scholarship that he becomes obsessed with it and buried under the weight of it. He is a cliché of the man who searches frantically for a needle in the proverbial haystack. In his case, the haystack or haystacks, are KGB and FBI files.

Schneir’s flawed reasoning leads him to believe that the truth is to be found somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of documents about the case. In fact, the documents are false; they are compounded of lies, untruths, half-truths, suppositions, fabrications and fictions.

Having lied in public before, during, and after the trial of the Rosenbergs, there was no legitimate reason to believe, as Schneir did, that the U.S. government would tell the truth in its own files. A romantic, and an idealist, Schneir believed that the dogged reporter would inevitably find the truth, ferret it out, and publish it for all humanity to see, read, and understand. If only it were so.

There is no clear narrative in Final Verdict; no straight story we can follow; only a mish-mash of dates and names and Schneir’s reflections and observations about his own work. Moreover, he becomes the main character in the story and the Rosenberg’s become the minor characters. I don’t believe that was his intent; but, unfortunately, in these pages, Ethel and Julius recede into the background while he emerges into the foreground.

No doubt about it, Walter Schneir was a kindly, humane man. But in these pages, he is guilty of a kind of intellectual arrogance. Moreover, he tends to belittle the very individuals he set out to defend. That too is an all-too frequent problem with scholars who spend so much time with and feel so intimately connected to their subjects that they come to loathe them, or feel superior to them.

At the start of a long paragraph about Julius Rosenberg’s politics, Schneir writes, “I can well imagine that the next two years were the most exciting and fulfilling of Julius Rosenberg’s life.” Schneir goes on to say, without providing the source of his information and without a single footnote, that “Julius was a man with a head full of the fantasies about the Soviet Union then current among the far left, a blind faith in the goodness of a land he had never seen.”

How Schneir knew what was in Julius’s “head” he never says. How he knew that Julius had “blind faith” he never says either. The fact that some members of the U.S. Communist Party had blind faith in the Soviet Union does not mean that Julius Rosenberg did, and it is unfair to link Julius to those trends and patterns without evidence.

Schneir goes on to say that “Rosenberg was no great shakes as an engineer,” as though that was further proof he could not have been guilty of the crime for which he was executed.

About three-quarters of the way though the book, Schneir writes that, “it would be interesting to have a clearer picture of what Julius was up to in the postwar years, but, unfortunately, a scarcity of hard evidence makes it impossible.” The lack of hard evidence does not prevent him, however, from writing that Julius Rosenberg’s “devotion to the Soviet Union and the cause of communism never wavered.” Perhaps Julius communicated with him secretly, or perhaps Schneir was channeling Julius.

If you want to read about the Rosenberg case, read Walter and Miriam Schneir’s earlier book, Invitation to An Inquest, or We are Your Sons, by Michael and Robby Meeropol — the sons of Ethel and Julius. Or read Sylvia Plath’s novel The Bell Jar that begins, “It was a queer, sultry summer, the summer they electrocuted the Rosenbergs, and I didn’t know what I was doing in New York.”

Or ponder the telegram that Allen Ginsberg sent to President Eisenhower in the White House in the summer of 1953: “Rosenbergs are pathetic! Government Will Sordid! Execution Obscene. America caught in crucifixion machine. Only barbarians want them burned. I say stop it before we fill our souls with death-house horrors.”

There is one very good reason to buy Final Verdict and that is the superlative black-and-white photos of the principal figures in the case. The documents in the case lie; the memories of those who lived then are no longer to be trusted. The photos are the closest things to the truth that exist.

The photos provide as real a story as we will ever know. Look at them and judge for yourself: Ethel and Julius; Ethel’s sister-in-law Ruth and her brother David; Judge Irving Kaufman who presided over the trial; Irving Saypol, the U.S. Attorney, who prosecuted, and his assistant Roy Cohen; Emmanuel Block, the Rosenberg’s lawyer. So many Jews! Indeed, the trial of the Rosenberg was all about Jews, Judaism, and anti-Semitism.

Finally, in Final Verdict, there is the amazing photo of the crowd of courageous New Yorkers who gathered on West 17th Street in Manhattan on June 19, 1953, the day of the execution, to bear witness to the deaths of Ethel and Julius and to this immense psychic and political wound to the body of America itself that has never healed, that won’t go away, that haunts this country to this day.

[Jonah Raskin is a professor of communication studies at Sonoma State University and has been writing about the Rosenbergs since 1962.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , , , | 4 Comments

Margarita Alarcón : 50 Years of Cuban Embargo is Enough

Cuban president Raul Castro at Cuba’s National Assembly in Havana. Photo by Ismael Francisco /AFP/ Getty images.

‘Four Riders’ and the Cuban embargo:
Fifty years should be enough

By Margarita Alarcón / The Rag Blog / November 6, 2010

In 1992, a little over 19 years ago during one typical hot summer season in New York City as the calm was smothering midtown and Murray Hill and the lethargic heat made it almost impossible to lift even an Italian Ice, four guys jokingly referred to as the Four Riders of the Apocalypse conceived of a work plan to fill up those slow muggy afternoons.

(The “Four Riders” were my father, the ambassador, and the three men below him in order of rank, while they were all at the UN during Cuba’s tenure in the Security Council as a non-permanent member, 1990-1992.)

There really wasn’t much to do in those days; the first Gulf War was “over,” the sanctions were in place, Saddam Hussein was still president, and the Iraqi people were suffering the after-effects of war and would do so till this very day; the Israeli Palestinian conflict was still going to be an issue one way or another; Puerto Rico was not going to be an independent island (at least not yet); North Korea and Iran had not yet made a peep over nukes.

Life was pretty slow in the UN. Well, for most, it was slow.

There were those who called them crazy — almost harebrained — given the extreme circumstances and what they were up against. To others it was remarkable how this particular topic had never been put forth.

Finally by the end of the summer, right as autumn was turning the Central Park leaves from green to the bright hues of auburn and yellow, they presented their plan to the largest world audience around, the United Nations. So it was that Resolution 59/11 of the United Nations General Assembly was adopted during the fall of the year 1992.

The way UN resolutions work is pretty simple. A nation — or a group of nations — get together and present a draft resolution which is then voted upon by the entire body of the General Assembly in order to become a topic of each year’s GA agenda. If it receives enough votes, it continues on the agenda.

Not very complicated, pretty straight forward, really not rocket science. As far as the rules and the regulations of the UN charter are concerned, member states have rights and responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is to adhere to the democratic voting process of the organization, its Charter, and its Security Council — whichever the case may be.

The United States of America is a founding member of both the General Assembly and the Security Council and has used both privileges on many occasions.

For almost two decades now, in what appeared to be a slow rise at first and has now become unwavering, the General Assembly has been voting in favor of resolution 59/11. Each year, gaining votes in favor, and losing abstentions with the same two nations voting against.

187-2-3

This year, the vote on resolution 59/11 on October 26th was once again described by the media as “an overwhelming majority” in favor of the resolution. Of the 192 member states that make up the entire body of the United Nations, 187 voted in favor of the resolution, Two — Israel and the United States — voted against it. And here is the punch line for geography buffs: the Marshall Islands, Palau, and Micronesia decided to abstain.

Resolution 59/11 is entitled “Necessity of ending the economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed by the United States of America against Cuba.” This is basically a fancier and nicer way of stating the following: put an end to the U.S. embargo against Cuba.

This is a legislated issue within the United States and thus does not fall automatically in the hands of the president. It isn’t President Obama’s embargo. Technically it belongs to Congress. Under law the only way the U.S. embargo against Cuba can be lifted is if two-thirds of the United States Congress (both houses) vote to do so. This has been a given since President William Clinton signed the Helms Burton Bill into law in 1996 serving at the pleasure of the Cuban American National Foundation and a few legislators.

It’s not President Barack Obama’s Embargo; it belongs to Congress and to the voters in the United States.

The irony is that Cuba is a Third World nation which has never had — and has never expressed — any intent of harming the people of the United State. Though unable to acquire practically anything on the open world market, this island has managed to achieve a 78-year life expectancy rate and an infant mortality rate at birth that would be the envy of any First World nation.

This is even more interesting if you take into account that the embargo has been around as long as the Cuban Revolution, so the “punishment” was not inflicted because of anything Cuba did or did not do to the United States or anyone else, but rather as a response to its sheer existence: radical social change 90 miles off the coasts of Florida.

So, I must ask the readers of The Rag Blog to urge the current President to advise his Congress (and yours) to lift this unjust, insane, ludicrous, and internationally condemned policy that is leading nowhere.

Those Four Riders of the Apocalypse didn’t spend their summer months writing in vain. Don’t let this president become the eleventh administrative head responsible for yet another year of unjust punishment of Cuba — for its simple desire for independence and sovereignty, something the forefathers of your own great nation also achieved through that “evil” word: revolution.

[Margarita Alarcón Perea was born in Havana, Cuba, and raised in New York City. She studied at Karl Marx Stadt in East Germany and Havana, and is a graduate of Havana University in linguistics. She has taught English translation and North American Twentieth Century Literature, and worked in the Cuban music industry. She is currently a news analyst for Cubadebate in Havana and contributes to The Huffington Post. Margarita’s father is Ricardo Alarcón, president of the Cuban National Assembly.]

The Rag Blog

Posted in Rag Bloggers | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

FAIR : Election Coverage Misses the Mark

Image from Blogging Belmont.

Surprise!
Press urges move to the right:
Media misreading midterm elections

By Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting / November 5, 2010

With the Democrats suffering substantial losses in Tuesday’s midterms, many journalists and pundits were offering a familiar diagnosis (Extra!, 7-8/06; FAIR Media Advisory, 2/3/09): The Democrats had misread their mandate and governed too far to the left. The solution, as always, is for Democrats to move to the right and reclaim “the center.” But this conventional wisdom falls apart under scrutiny.

For months, the problem for Democrats was correctly identified as the “enthusiasm gap” — the idea that the progressive base of the party was not excited about voting. The exit polls from Tuesday’s vote confirm that many Democratic-tending voters failed to show up.

How, then, does one square this fact with the idea that Obama and Democrats were pushing policies that were considered too left-wing? If that were the case, then presumably more of those base voters would have voted to support that agenda. It is difficult to fathom how both things could be true.

But reporting and commentary preferred a narrative that declared that Obama’s “days of muscling through an ambitious legislative agenda on [the] strength of Democratic votes [are] over” (Washington Post, 11/3/10). “The verdict delivered by voters on Tuesday effectively put an end to his transformational ambitions,” announced Peter Baker of The New York Times (11/3/10).

Some thought Obama’s post-election speech was still missing the point. As The Washington Post‘s Dan Balz put it (11/4/10), Obama was “unwilling, it seemed, to consider whether he had moved too far to the left for many voters who thought he was a centrist when he ran in 2008.” On CNN (11/3/10), David Gergen said, “I don’t think he made a sufficient pivot to the center today. He has to do that, I think, through policies and through personnel.” Gergen went on to cite Social Security “reform” as an ideal way to demonstrate he was “taking on his base.”

The Washington Post‘s David Broder (11/4/10) advised Obama to

return to his original design for governing, which emphasized outreach to Republicans and subordination of party-oriented strategies. The voters have in effect liberated him from his confining alliances with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and put him in a position where he can and must negotiate with a much wider range of legislators, including Republicans. The president’s worst mistake may have been avoiding even a single one-on-one meeting with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell until he had been in office for a year and a half.

USA Today‘s Susan Page noted before the election (10/29/10):

During his first two years in office, Obama often acted as if he didn’t need a working relationship with congressional Republicans. With big Democratic majorities in Congress… he could court a few moderate Republicans such as Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe in hopes of peeling off a GOP vote or two to block a filibuster or give legislation a bipartisan patina.

This view of Obama’s politics meshes poorly with reality. Much of the Democrats’ maneuvering over the healthcare bill, for example, was devoted to trying to find any Republicans who might support it, stripping out elements of the bill — such as the public option — that were drawing more enthusiasm from the party base. (A true single-payer plan was rejected from the beginning.)

The dramatic escalation of the Afghan War was a major disappointment to the progressive base, along with Obama’s embrace of nuclear power and offshore oil drilling. And critics on the left often expressed disappointment with the White House’s timid approach to Wall Street reform and economic stimulus.

Yet after the election, it was difficult to find TV pundits who would argue against the media conventional wisdom about an agenda that was too left-wing. Instead pundits were offering plenty of suggestions for Obama to move even further to the right — Time‘s Joe Klein recommended building more nuclear power plants (FAIR Blog, 10/29/10) and Washington Post columnist David Broder floated a war with Iran to boost the economy and promote bipartisanship (FAIR Blog, 11/1/10).

Bill Clinton, whom media likewise counseled to move right after heavy midterm losses, was frequently held up as an exemplar: “If there is a model for the way forward in recent history, it’s provided by President Bill Clinton, who established himself as more of a centrist by working with Republicans to pass welfare reform after Democrats lost their grip on Congress in 1994.” (Associated Press, 11/2/10).

The advice to move to the “center” was accompanied by reporting and analysis that wondered if Obama was even capable of doing so. “Obama has not shown the same sort of centrist sensibilities that Mr. Clinton did,” explained The New York Times (11/3/10).

Of course, Clinton’s first two years were centrist — and a disappointment to his base, seriously dampening Democratic turnout in the midterms (Extra!, 1-2/95; FAIR Media Advisory, 11/7/08). And the “Clinton model” failed to build broad Democratic electoral success.

Meanwhile, the pundits had right in front of them, in the sweeping Republican victory, an example of how a political party can organize a comeback — not by moving to the center and alienating its base, but by “using guerrilla-style tactics to attack Democrats and play offense” (New York Times, 11/4/10).

The economy, stupid

Much of the election analysis sought to ignore or downplay what was inarguably an election about unemployment and the state of the economy. Reporting that sought to elevate the federal budget deficit (FAIR Action Alert,6/24/10) as a primary issue of concern served as a diversion — and drove the election narrative into Republican territory, where rhetoric about “big government” and cutting federal spending were dominant themes.

“If there is an overarching theme of election 2010, it is the question of how big the government should be and how far it should reach into people’s lives,” explained the lead of an October 10 Washington Post article. There was little in that article — or anywhere else — to support that contention.

With the economy the overwhelming issue for the public (Washington Post, 11/3/10) the media should have led a serious discussion about what to do about it. Instead, there was a discussion that mostly adhered to a formula where the left-wing position was that nothing could be done to improve the economic situation (when the actual progressive view was that a great deal more could have been done), while the right offered an attack on federal spending but was never required to offer a coherent explanation of how such spending eliminated jobs.

As The New York Times‘ Baker (11/3/10) framed it: “Was this the natural and unavoidable backlash in a time of historic economic distress, or was it a repudiation of a big-spending activist government?”

There were some exceptions — MSNBC interviews with top Republican officials on election night (11/2/10), for instance, revealed that many could not offer a coherent plan for reducing spending or the budget deficit. This should have been a larger part of the media’s coverage of the election.

Who voted?
Some election reporting and commentary treated the results as if they represented a dramatic lurch to the right. As Alternet‘s Josh Holland noted (11/3/10), reporting like a New York Times article that talked of “critical parts” of the 2008 Obama vote “switching their allegiance to the Republicans” distracted from the main lesson — that many Obama voters of two years ago did not participate in 2010. Republican-leaning voters, on the other hand, did.

That fact, along with the disastrous state of the economy and the normal historical trends seen in midterm elections, would seem to provide most of the answers for why the election turned out the way it did.

But much of the media commentary wanted to turn the election into a national referendum on the new healthcare law or the size of government. The exit polls provide some clues about the sentiment of voters, but the lessons don’t seem to fit neatly into those dominant media narratives.

Asked who was to blame for the state of the economy, most picked Wall Street and George W. Bush (USA Today, 11/3/10). As a New York Times editorial noted (11/4/10), “While 48 percent of voters said they wanted to repeal the healthcare law, 47 percent said they wanted to keep it the way it is or expand it — hardly a roaring consensus.”

Some attention was paid to the exit poll finding that 39 percent of voters support Congress focusing on deficit reduction — which would appear to lend some credence to the media message that voters cared deeply about deficits. But the same exit polling found 37 percent support for more government spending to create jobs.

Given that polling of the general public shows stronger concern about jobs — The New York Times reported (9/16/10) that “The economy and jobs are increasingly and overwhelmingly cited by Americans as the most important problems facing the country, while the deficit barely registers as a topic of concern when survey respondents were asked to volunteer their worries” — if anything, this finding serves to reinforce that citizens energized by Republican talking points were the ones who showed up to vote (FAIR Blog, 10/18/10).

In the end, the elections were covered the way elections are often covered — poorly. As Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research put it (Politico, 11/2/10), “Until we get better media, we will not get better politics.”

[Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) is a national media watch group that, in its own words, “has been offering well-documented criticism of media bias and censorship since 1986.” FAIR “work[s] to invigorate the First Amendment by advocating for greater diversity in the press and by scrutinizing media practices that marginalize public interest, minority, and dissenting viewpoints.”]

Source / Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) / CommonDreams

The Rag Blog

Posted in RagBlog | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment