Voters are drawn to candidates that like them. The inability to communicate that affection and fashion such bonds derailed the ultimate political ambitions of Dukakis, Kerry, Gore, Stevenson and Goldwater (probably Dole to a lesser extent). Cold indifference to the people short-circuited the legacy oriented aspirations of Johnson and Nixon.
President Obama succeeded in forging such bonds with the voters during the campaign. Like Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton he sold an appealing message. He encouraged voters to be part of something historic, to validate their desire to contribute through politics and to make a difference. Kennedy and Reagan thought highly of America and Americans and valued and encouraged the contributions of the electorate. Clinton probably viewed electoral politics largely as a referendum on his person, but he clearly viewed government as a vehicle for good.
What happened between Obama and the voters? His supporters seem more handcuffed to Obama than hand-holding. The phenomenon is hard to explain, like the Hollywood marriages that last seven months. How much can go wrong in seven months or in twenty-one months? Not that much really. Obamacare, the stimulus, the deficit and the tax policy proposals are problems, but hardly insurmountable for liberals to reconcile. The erosion of support for the president is more personal than political. Like the seven month marriages, the cracks trace back to the courtship.
Obama's America is country of villains that needs a sheriff to police it. America is Tombstone and he is Wyatt Earp. The Obama supporters have come to see their contribution was limited to putting the sheriff in office. During the courtship, it was nice that you all hated the same folks. But now it seems, that he never really liked your sister either. He doesn't find much appealing about the neighbors or your boss and as it turns out, he is not being well-served by some of his supporters either. It just might turn out that your most appealing virtue was your admiration for him.
We have only tried to divorce presidents twice mid-term. We almost always take our differences up with their colleagues. That is what is occurring now. The policy discussions that were so unceremoniously side-stepped in the past two years are taking place there.
But the problem for Obama and for us doesn't abate with a Republican sweep. Chances are the partisan divide opens like the Grand Canyon. The last two years of the Obama presidency will be an endless series of vetoes. The president's recent comment that "the Republicans are welcome to ride the bus but they will have to sit in the back" is not too encouraging. Next year, Republicans may be driving the bus. All the president will be able to do is issue a rhetorical ticket.
I wrote in "America's assistant principal" that president doesn't seem to like many of us; his job would be easier if he did. There is no denying the president's political skill. If this election is going to produce more than an uncomfortable two year impasse, the president will have to put those skills to good use.
President Obama should smooth things over with the ruffled in his own party first. But he needs to reach out to the business community, the Tea Party types, the pro-life folks, Fox News, those with illegal immigration concerns and the apolitical. America is not a problem to be solved. Barack Obama has the skills to be a leader and leadership is needed now. The jury is still out on whether he will.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Voters ponder "Will you still love me tomorrow?"
Friday, October 15, 2010
John Boehner leaves me cold
John Boehner gave us an unfortunate look into the Republican revolution when he said it was "too early" to talk specifics regarding spending cuts. Sounds a bit like "you'll have to pass the bill to find out what's in it." In a year when Republican are running against Executive arrogance and 'Chicago-style politics,' Boehner's remarks constitute seriously competitive arrogance.
The hostility toward Washington evidenced in the polls, in the reluctance to invest or hire and in the Tea Party movement will no doubt sweep Republicans into the House majority. The Tea Party phenomenon will benefit the Republican electoral effort. Boehner is making a mistake if he reads the Tea Party folks as either patient or loyal. Their short term bet is on the Republican horse. But they won't ride that horse twice if he doesn't dial that attitude back a piece.
Voters have been angry before. The Perot movement in 1992 garnered 19 million votes in the general election. Perot received over 20 percent of the vote in 25 states, over 25 percent in 10 states.
In 1968 George Wallace carried five Southern states and garnered some 46 electoral votes. In states that he didn't win, he received 28.5 percent of the total in Florida,31.3 percent in North Carolina and 34 percent in Tennessee. Neither effort was really a serious pursuit of the office.
In the end, the Wallace voters were merely afforded a chance to vote against Humphrey without voting for Nixon. The Perot voters were able to vote against Bush without voting for Clinton.
People no longer remember that Eugene McCarthy was the leading vote-getter in the Democratic primaries in 1968 although he did not come close to getting the nomination.
What did we learn from history? We learned that 20 percent of the voters are prepared to go outside the Democrat and Republican parties to vote for president. We learned that demographic appeals can potentially unearth electoral votes and most importantly, in McCarthy’s case, that a party can be dragged reluctantly toward the sentiments of the grassroots.
Frankly, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were hardly charismatic or visionary individuals. They were one-trick ponies and not exactly models of ethics or towers of emotional stability. What happens if the anger attaches itself to a more solid person, a Mike Pence or a Condi Rice or a Bill Bennett. What happens if a Paul Tsongas-type Democrat doesn't want to wait until 2016?
The most interesting distinction between the Tea Party movement and the followers of the aforementioned is that this attention is directed at the Congress, especially at the House where the spending originates. That tells me that the disenchanted may be in it for the long haul.
Will the Tea Party be around as a third party alternative in four years? Probably not. If it survives as an ideological movement, it may enable the birth of a credible third party or support the election prospects of Libertarian-leaning and Independent candidates both in and outside the main parties. It can continue to cull the ranks of Democrat and Republican candidates who disdain the voter's wishes. They will remain a potent force in national politics if they remain ‘beholden to no one.
This much is certain. The blinding loyalty of the Tea Party supporters to Republicans in this election cycle is simply a 'no other card to play' phenomenon. The Democrats clearly don't want to be contaminated by associating with the Tea Party types. If Boehner and his ilk cannot talk the details of entitlement reform and real spending cuts now, the day is never coming.
Just trust me and we’ll get into the details after the election. This is a bad play for Republicans. If you can’t be brave campaigning, why should voters expect you to be brave governing. For all their many flaws, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were brave campaigners. In another lifetime, we called that honesty.
The hostility toward Washington evidenced in the polls, in the reluctance to invest or hire and in the Tea Party movement will no doubt sweep Republicans into the House majority. The Tea Party phenomenon will benefit the Republican electoral effort. Boehner is making a mistake if he reads the Tea Party folks as either patient or loyal. Their short term bet is on the Republican horse. But they won't ride that horse twice if he doesn't dial that attitude back a piece.
Voters have been angry before. The Perot movement in 1992 garnered 19 million votes in the general election. Perot received over 20 percent of the vote in 25 states, over 25 percent in 10 states.
In 1968 George Wallace carried five Southern states and garnered some 46 electoral votes. In states that he didn't win, he received 28.5 percent of the total in Florida,31.3 percent in North Carolina and 34 percent in Tennessee. Neither effort was really a serious pursuit of the office.
In the end, the Wallace voters were merely afforded a chance to vote against Humphrey without voting for Nixon. The Perot voters were able to vote against Bush without voting for Clinton.
People no longer remember that Eugene McCarthy was the leading vote-getter in the Democratic primaries in 1968 although he did not come close to getting the nomination.
What did we learn from history? We learned that 20 percent of the voters are prepared to go outside the Democrat and Republican parties to vote for president. We learned that demographic appeals can potentially unearth electoral votes and most importantly, in McCarthy’s case, that a party can be dragged reluctantly toward the sentiments of the grassroots.
Frankly, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were hardly charismatic or visionary individuals. They were one-trick ponies and not exactly models of ethics or towers of emotional stability. What happens if the anger attaches itself to a more solid person, a Mike Pence or a Condi Rice or a Bill Bennett. What happens if a Paul Tsongas-type Democrat doesn't want to wait until 2016?
The most interesting distinction between the Tea Party movement and the followers of the aforementioned is that this attention is directed at the Congress, especially at the House where the spending originates. That tells me that the disenchanted may be in it for the long haul.
Will the Tea Party be around as a third party alternative in four years? Probably not. If it survives as an ideological movement, it may enable the birth of a credible third party or support the election prospects of Libertarian-leaning and Independent candidates both in and outside the main parties. It can continue to cull the ranks of Democrat and Republican candidates who disdain the voter's wishes. They will remain a potent force in national politics if they remain ‘beholden to no one.
This much is certain. The blinding loyalty of the Tea Party supporters to Republicans in this election cycle is simply a 'no other card to play' phenomenon. The Democrats clearly don't want to be contaminated by associating with the Tea Party types. If Boehner and his ilk cannot talk the details of entitlement reform and real spending cuts now, the day is never coming.
Just trust me and we’ll get into the details after the election. This is a bad play for Republicans. If you can’t be brave campaigning, why should voters expect you to be brave governing. For all their many flaws, Perot, Wallace and McCarthy were brave campaigners. In another lifetime, we called that honesty.
Saturday, August 7, 2010
The buck stops nowhere
For as long as I can remember, politicians have portrayed economic distress as the predictable consequence of intentional acts inflicted on the unsuspecting public by their opponents. Setting aside the malevolent motives ascribed to their counterparts, I find it remarkable how powerful they find them. Not only do they see them as capable of conspiracies, crimes and selfish motives, they see them as good at conspiracies and crimes and malevolence.
The Obama Democrats are almost awed by the magical powers of the Republican minority. By the same token, while Republicans can seemingly impose their evil will on the economy, Democrats with overwhelming control of both houses still feel pretty impotent. And more importantly, not responsible for the outcomes of their own making.
Let's examine the case for the stimulus package. The focal justification for the stimulus was to prevent the unemployment rate from rising to 9 or 9.5 percent. Passing this legislation would keep the unemployment rate under eight percent. When the unemployment rate ballooned to 9.7 percent, the explanation was pretty unconvincing. The Democrats didn't grasp how bad the economy really was. The Republicans had made even a bigger mess than we thought. That is certainly one explanation, Another would be the stimulus didn't work. Needless to say, that school of thought wasn't given much credence.
Americans can find at least two things to be depressed about here First, we have one party government for the time being. Worse, we have unaccountable one-party government. We have have placed the Congress in the hands of a party that can do anything-they-want, yet doesn;t want to account for the result of anything-they-want. It is also troubling that politicians, who failed to grasp the fragility of the economy, could advocate so adamantly for a remedy that is so fiscally reckless.
The second and even more distressing outcome is that the buck stops nowhere. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. If the buck doesn't stop at the Democratic doorstep today, it won't stop at the Republican doorstep if the voter have a similar temper tantrum in November.
Once again the media is missing in action. The politics dominate the daily news cycles. The politics,though, are just Entertainment tonight from Washington D.C. As we come to expect less and less from politicians, we get less and less. As we accept less from the media, we get ? We would be lucky if political decisions affected only politics.
The decisions being made in Washington affect your employment opportunities, your retirement security, the quality and availability of medical care and your ability to secure credit. They impact your security and your liberty. These issues are a damned side more important than who wins the political sideshow.
The Obama Democrats are almost awed by the magical powers of the Republican minority. By the same token, while Republicans can seemingly impose their evil will on the economy, Democrats with overwhelming control of both houses still feel pretty impotent. And more importantly, not responsible for the outcomes of their own making.
Let's examine the case for the stimulus package. The focal justification for the stimulus was to prevent the unemployment rate from rising to 9 or 9.5 percent. Passing this legislation would keep the unemployment rate under eight percent. When the unemployment rate ballooned to 9.7 percent, the explanation was pretty unconvincing. The Democrats didn't grasp how bad the economy really was. The Republicans had made even a bigger mess than we thought. That is certainly one explanation, Another would be the stimulus didn't work. Needless to say, that school of thought wasn't given much credence.
Americans can find at least two things to be depressed about here First, we have one party government for the time being. Worse, we have unaccountable one-party government. We have have placed the Congress in the hands of a party that can do anything-they-want, yet doesn;t want to account for the result of anything-they-want. It is also troubling that politicians, who failed to grasp the fragility of the economy, could advocate so adamantly for a remedy that is so fiscally reckless.
The second and even more distressing outcome is that the buck stops nowhere. I mean that both literally and metaphorically. If the buck doesn't stop at the Democratic doorstep today, it won't stop at the Republican doorstep if the voter have a similar temper tantrum in November.
Once again the media is missing in action. The politics dominate the daily news cycles. The politics,though, are just Entertainment tonight from Washington D.C. As we come to expect less and less from politicians, we get less and less. As we accept less from the media, we get ? We would be lucky if political decisions affected only politics.
The decisions being made in Washington affect your employment opportunities, your retirement security, the quality and availability of medical care and your ability to secure credit. They impact your security and your liberty. These issues are a damned side more important than who wins the political sideshow.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Midterms "Feel the breeze"
I so look forward to the midterm elections. Politicians are on their best behavior, rising above the senseless antipathy and character assassination that poisons politics during the governing phase.
Politicians assume a respectful demeanor grounded in a recognition that they are public servants, not public overseers. See what hope and change has wrought.
Seriously, with Congress polling at an 11 percent approval rating, a little less animosity and a bit more humility might be a good play, tactically speaking. So, why aren't we seeing it. There has been a seismic shift away from party affiliation and incumbent infatuation. The disenchanted fringes, the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republican and Perot voters now people much of the eclectic middle. With the wisdom that only career politicians can muster, the Democrats strategy is to intimidate their recalcitrant charges back into the fold.
By associating the Tea party types with racism, substandard intelligence and angry rural sentiments, Democrats hope that the Obama deserters will dissassociate themselves from the radical center and hop back aboard the Obama train. The Republican response has been equally mystifying. While the criticism of the Sharron Angle types has been cautious, their message is directed at emphasizing the impotence of Tea Party independents. Without us, you are no one. Republicans should recognize impotent. They are desperately in need of a legislative blue pill.
The Republicans usually own the tone deafness issue but not this time. Their Democrats have established an oily sort of comfort with attacking the undecideds. They don't dispute the dissatisfactions of the undecideds as much as they dispute their right to be dissatisfied. It is an arrogant whim to think only Democratic grievances are valid grievances.
The Republicans are at least entertaining the idea that the party has to address the collective disenchantments of the 'beholden to no one crowd.' The Democrats seem content to wait and forgive them when they finally come to their senses. If I was truly undecided, I'd remember who treated me better when I was adrift.
Politicians assume a respectful demeanor grounded in a recognition that they are public servants, not public overseers. See what hope and change has wrought.
Seriously, with Congress polling at an 11 percent approval rating, a little less animosity and a bit more humility might be a good play, tactically speaking. So, why aren't we seeing it. There has been a seismic shift away from party affiliation and incumbent infatuation. The disenchanted fringes, the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republican and Perot voters now people much of the eclectic middle. With the wisdom that only career politicians can muster, the Democrats strategy is to intimidate their recalcitrant charges back into the fold.
By associating the Tea party types with racism, substandard intelligence and angry rural sentiments, Democrats hope that the Obama deserters will dissassociate themselves from the radical center and hop back aboard the Obama train. The Republican response has been equally mystifying. While the criticism of the Sharron Angle types has been cautious, their message is directed at emphasizing the impotence of Tea Party independents. Without us, you are no one. Republicans should recognize impotent. They are desperately in need of a legislative blue pill.
The Republicans usually own the tone deafness issue but not this time. Their Democrats have established an oily sort of comfort with attacking the undecideds. They don't dispute the dissatisfactions of the undecideds as much as they dispute their right to be dissatisfied. It is an arrogant whim to think only Democratic grievances are valid grievances.
The Republicans are at least entertaining the idea that the party has to address the collective disenchantments of the 'beholden to no one crowd.' The Democrats seem content to wait and forgive them when they finally come to their senses. If I was truly undecided, I'd remember who treated me better when I was adrift.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
America's assistant principal
It is difficult to believe that President Obama rose from the ranks of the non-judgmental left. Like a high school assistant principal, he is constantly reminding America that there is only one adult here and we won't see him or her in our bathroom mirror. Like selfish, inconsiderate and undisciplined children, we are screwing up the school, er, the country.
In remarks about the oil disaster in the Gulf, the President made yet an another unnecessary foray into condescension. There were three CEO' s testifying in front of the latest congressional dog and pony show. Why these individuals were busy being flayed by Congress instead of guiding their companies at this critical moment is beyond me. Is the country somehow better served if they are all busy in Washington acting contrite.
To play devil's advocate for these CEO's, who are, in fact engineers; they may have a significant role to play in the repair effort going on in the Gulf. If the buck stops at their door, they may be needed somewhere other than the hot seat. Regarding their individual culpability, we don't actually yet know if anyone is guilty of negligence or recklessness. We don't know if we are dealing with human error, design flaw, criminal mischief, inept regulatory oversight or reckless disregard. If one or two or all of the parties are less than causally responsible, why should they not defend themselves.
Without evidence to the contrary, I think we can assume this much. None of the parties intentionally endangered the lives of their own employees or put the financial health of their companies, the livelihoods of their customers and the environment at risk by design. Bad decisions are a part of life. Even negligence can be benign or malicious.
The condescending tone President Obama adopts in his public statements occur too often to be anything other than calculated. A brief review of presidential highlights reminds us that no one has a lower opinion of the American people than their president. He finds the Tea party participants amusing and ungrateful. He admonished a Fox anchor twice in a single interview for interrupting him. He was tactless and arrogant during the health care summit.
He will not "abide" those who seek to misinform the public about health care. He thinks there is a point "when you have made enough money." His tendency to generalize has questioned the motives of mortgage lenders, Wall Street bankers, Arizona voters, Republicans and the Bush administration. And then there are those who "get bitter, cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."
Mind you, I am not defending anyone in particular. I do believe that much of the harm that is visited on our country occurs without design or intent. Much occurs because the citizens are no more skilled or compassionate or far-sighted than their counterparts in government. Private institutions recklessly carry inadequate capital reserves, much like Social Security, Medicare and federal housing lenders.
The president said in his first appearance before Congress that he was humbled by the responsibility. I believe that he meant it then. In the succeeding months, it seems that the president has overcome his humility and reached the limits of his patience with many of us. It would serve him well to remember that while he occupies a position of great responsibility, his stock in the country is the same as every other American.
I went to a Jesuit High School, a good training ground for living in Obama's America. Deep down inside, I knew that our crabby and taciturn assistant principal really liked us. I don't get the sense that the president likes many of us. It would make his job easier if he did.
In his leadership seminars and books, John Wooden notes that leaders say "Lets go" not "Get going" The point merits some presidential pondering.
In remarks about the oil disaster in the Gulf, the President made yet an another unnecessary foray into condescension. There were three CEO' s testifying in front of the latest congressional dog and pony show. Why these individuals were busy being flayed by Congress instead of guiding their companies at this critical moment is beyond me. Is the country somehow better served if they are all busy in Washington acting contrite.
To play devil's advocate for these CEO's, who are, in fact engineers; they may have a significant role to play in the repair effort going on in the Gulf. If the buck stops at their door, they may be needed somewhere other than the hot seat. Regarding their individual culpability, we don't actually yet know if anyone is guilty of negligence or recklessness. We don't know if we are dealing with human error, design flaw, criminal mischief, inept regulatory oversight or reckless disregard. If one or two or all of the parties are less than causally responsible, why should they not defend themselves.
Without evidence to the contrary, I think we can assume this much. None of the parties intentionally endangered the lives of their own employees or put the financial health of their companies, the livelihoods of their customers and the environment at risk by design. Bad decisions are a part of life. Even negligence can be benign or malicious.
The condescending tone President Obama adopts in his public statements occur too often to be anything other than calculated. A brief review of presidential highlights reminds us that no one has a lower opinion of the American people than their president. He finds the Tea party participants amusing and ungrateful. He admonished a Fox anchor twice in a single interview for interrupting him. He was tactless and arrogant during the health care summit.
He will not "abide" those who seek to misinform the public about health care. He thinks there is a point "when you have made enough money." His tendency to generalize has questioned the motives of mortgage lenders, Wall Street bankers, Arizona voters, Republicans and the Bush administration. And then there are those who "get bitter, cling to their guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."
Mind you, I am not defending anyone in particular. I do believe that much of the harm that is visited on our country occurs without design or intent. Much occurs because the citizens are no more skilled or compassionate or far-sighted than their counterparts in government. Private institutions recklessly carry inadequate capital reserves, much like Social Security, Medicare and federal housing lenders.
The president said in his first appearance before Congress that he was humbled by the responsibility. I believe that he meant it then. In the succeeding months, it seems that the president has overcome his humility and reached the limits of his patience with many of us. It would serve him well to remember that while he occupies a position of great responsibility, his stock in the country is the same as every other American.
I went to a Jesuit High School, a good training ground for living in Obama's America. Deep down inside, I knew that our crabby and taciturn assistant principal really liked us. I don't get the sense that the president likes many of us. It would make his job easier if he did.
In his leadership seminars and books, John Wooden notes that leaders say "Lets go" not "Get going" The point merits some presidential pondering.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Washington needs literacy initiative
Eric Holder made what should have been a remarkable admission on Thursday. He has not yet read the Arizona law that he has already publicly denounced. In addition, he had speculated on the record about a forthcoming legal challenge. Both actions could be construed as premature. Maybe he read the Cliffnotes.
Last year, several representatives acknowledged that they hadn't read the stimulus bill, then under consideration. Similar inferences can reasonably be drawn regarding congressional familiarity with the recent health care bill.
At recent hearings about financial reform, it was apparent that some legislators knew less about credit default swaps and synthetic CDO's than I know. It was equally clear that one member did not really understand elements of the very transaction that had provoked his outrage.
In the aftermath of last year's stimulus bill, Sen. Christopher Dodd had to publicly acknowledge that he, himself, inserted 'grandfather clause' language concerning bonuses. (The language was subsequently used to guarantee bonuses at AIG after the company's financial collapse and government rescue) Unlike officials who are unaware of detail because they haven't read the relevant material, Dodd had previously denied to CNN, knowledge of his involvement with material that he personally authored. In a curious aside, he was later able to remember precisely why he inserted the specific language that he denied authorship of.
How is it that that the Attorney General can take issue with and threaten legal action in response to legislation that he has not read? How does a legislator choose whether to vote for or against a bill that he or she has not read? Is it possible for a congressman to make a meaningful contribution to financial regulatory reform without being conversant in the most basic vocabulary attached to the issue? If an elected representative is going to contribute language to legislation, should he not demonstrate a clear understanding of the precipitating events.
These questions require either that the parties read, research and understand the issues or explain how their Edgar Cayce-like intuition steers them unerringly to to right conclusion without even a hint of study. At least Cayce justified his intuition. He acquired it in a trance. Where did Holder develop his strongly held convictions? Did his concern come to him in a dream or was it just issued to him?
Now, if I were a cynical person, I might think the explanation transcended the paranormal. I might think it was about politics.
Students, routinely, are assigned homework. Read pages 122-146 in the textbook. Their knowledge is subsequently measured with a test. The test measures familiarity with the content. Students do not just vote aye or nay on the assignment.
Here's a test that you might like to try on your legislator. All the questions can be answered yes or no. Did you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act?, or the Restoring American Financial Stability Act? If your legislator answers yes, feel free to ask followup questions.
Washington desperately needs a literacy initiative for elected officials and political appointees. Your assignment is to read the bill you are voting on this Wednesday or discussing on Meet the Press next Sunday. The mainstream media would have you believe that most citizens are typically uninformed and disinterested. I attended two of the health care townhalls. It was evident that many of the attendees had more than a passing familiarity with the current versions of the legislation. At one of those meetings, it was equally clear that the elected official did not.
I'm sure that Eric Holder is a busy guy. At the same time, it is clear that the anchors and legal analysts at CNN and Fox had tainted themselves with actual knowledge of the Arizona law's content. Public officials take advantage of the media forums afforded to them by virtue of their position. They should come armed with more than just a feeling.
Last year, several representatives acknowledged that they hadn't read the stimulus bill, then under consideration. Similar inferences can reasonably be drawn regarding congressional familiarity with the recent health care bill.
At recent hearings about financial reform, it was apparent that some legislators knew less about credit default swaps and synthetic CDO's than I know. It was equally clear that one member did not really understand elements of the very transaction that had provoked his outrage.
In the aftermath of last year's stimulus bill, Sen. Christopher Dodd had to publicly acknowledge that he, himself, inserted 'grandfather clause' language concerning bonuses. (The language was subsequently used to guarantee bonuses at AIG after the company's financial collapse and government rescue) Unlike officials who are unaware of detail because they haven't read the relevant material, Dodd had previously denied to CNN, knowledge of his involvement with material that he personally authored. In a curious aside, he was later able to remember precisely why he inserted the specific language that he denied authorship of.
How is it that that the Attorney General can take issue with and threaten legal action in response to legislation that he has not read? How does a legislator choose whether to vote for or against a bill that he or she has not read? Is it possible for a congressman to make a meaningful contribution to financial regulatory reform without being conversant in the most basic vocabulary attached to the issue? If an elected representative is going to contribute language to legislation, should he not demonstrate a clear understanding of the precipitating events.
These questions require either that the parties read, research and understand the issues or explain how their Edgar Cayce-like intuition steers them unerringly to to right conclusion without even a hint of study. At least Cayce justified his intuition. He acquired it in a trance. Where did Holder develop his strongly held convictions? Did his concern come to him in a dream or was it just issued to him?
Now, if I were a cynical person, I might think the explanation transcended the paranormal. I might think it was about politics.
Students, routinely, are assigned homework. Read pages 122-146 in the textbook. Their knowledge is subsequently measured with a test. The test measures familiarity with the content. Students do not just vote aye or nay on the assignment.
Here's a test that you might like to try on your legislator. All the questions can be answered yes or no. Did you read the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act?, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act?, the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act?, or the Restoring American Financial Stability Act? If your legislator answers yes, feel free to ask followup questions.
Washington desperately needs a literacy initiative for elected officials and political appointees. Your assignment is to read the bill you are voting on this Wednesday or discussing on Meet the Press next Sunday. The mainstream media would have you believe that most citizens are typically uninformed and disinterested. I attended two of the health care townhalls. It was evident that many of the attendees had more than a passing familiarity with the current versions of the legislation. At one of those meetings, it was equally clear that the elected official did not.
I'm sure that Eric Holder is a busy guy. At the same time, it is clear that the anchors and legal analysts at CNN and Fox had tainted themselves with actual knowledge of the Arizona law's content. Public officials take advantage of the media forums afforded to them by virtue of their position. They should come armed with more than just a feeling.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Conversation about Arizona Senate bill 1070
There is general agreement that illegal aliens in Arizona number around 500,000. The total population of Arizona is approximately 6.5 million (census data), 30 percent of whom are Hispanics. For the purpose of this discussion, let's assume that none of the illegal alien population is reflected in that 30 percent. If true, the estimated Hispanic population would total almost 2.45 million out of a population of 7 million, approximately 35 percent Hispanic, about 20 percent of those, illegal aliens.
Some of those illegal aliens are surely reflected in the census data, so the 20 percent number is somewhat lower than the actual percentage. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the percentage falls in 24 to 28 percent range. Recent passage of Senate bill 1070 in Arizona can't be fairly analyzed without that context. In reality, upwards of 20 percent and perhaps as much as 30 percent of the Hispanic residents of Arizona are illegal aliens.
Having said that, I agree with commentators running the gamut from Fred Barnes to Kirsten Powers who fear that it raises the potential for racial profiling.
The bill is sixteen pages long and much of it deals with employer responsibilities. The controversy is mostly focused on article 8, section B. To paraphrase; in lawful contacts between law enforcement and residents, where a reasonable suspicion exists that the subject of the contact is an illegal, unlawfully present in the United States, some reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the person's immigration status.
This bill isn't the answer, but the feds who usually see no bounds to their responsibilities and authority are notably absent here.
The potential for abuse is real but the likelihood is overstated. One out of every four Arizona Hispanics is an illegal alien. The percentage of those who are encountered via lawful police contacts is surely higher than 25 percent.
This bill isn't the death of civil liberties but ongoing scrutiny is warranted. The scope of 'lawful contact' requires some legal clarity as well as serious policy discussion. No one believes that mere police presence at emergency medical service runs should be considered a pretext for investigating the immigration status of principals or bystanders.
Horrific violence is occurring on the southern border every day. In Phoenix, criminal illegals are often the victims of drug-related kidnappings. And over seven percent of the state population is Hispanic illegals. Conscientious policing and measured responses from native-born and naturalized Hispanic communities will help in the short term. It has become vogue for politicians to justify every unconstitutional misadventure with "we had to do something." Well Arizona had to do something.
Arizona will survive this legislation in the short term. The virtue of the citizens will offset the law's shortcomings. In the long term, the feds need to do their job.
Some of those illegal aliens are surely reflected in the census data, so the 20 percent number is somewhat lower than the actual percentage. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the percentage falls in 24 to 28 percent range. Recent passage of Senate bill 1070 in Arizona can't be fairly analyzed without that context. In reality, upwards of 20 percent and perhaps as much as 30 percent of the Hispanic residents of Arizona are illegal aliens.
Having said that, I agree with commentators running the gamut from Fred Barnes to Kirsten Powers who fear that it raises the potential for racial profiling.
The bill is sixteen pages long and much of it deals with employer responsibilities. The controversy is mostly focused on article 8, section B. To paraphrase; in lawful contacts between law enforcement and residents, where a reasonable suspicion exists that the subject of the contact is an illegal, unlawfully present in the United States, some reasonable attempt should be made, when practicable, to determine the person's immigration status.
This bill isn't the answer, but the feds who usually see no bounds to their responsibilities and authority are notably absent here.
The potential for abuse is real but the likelihood is overstated. One out of every four Arizona Hispanics is an illegal alien. The percentage of those who are encountered via lawful police contacts is surely higher than 25 percent.
This bill isn't the death of civil liberties but ongoing scrutiny is warranted. The scope of 'lawful contact' requires some legal clarity as well as serious policy discussion. No one believes that mere police presence at emergency medical service runs should be considered a pretext for investigating the immigration status of principals or bystanders.
Horrific violence is occurring on the southern border every day. In Phoenix, criminal illegals are often the victims of drug-related kidnappings. And over seven percent of the state population is Hispanic illegals. Conscientious policing and measured responses from native-born and naturalized Hispanic communities will help in the short term. It has become vogue for politicians to justify every unconstitutional misadventure with "we had to do something." Well Arizona had to do something.
Arizona will survive this legislation in the short term. The virtue of the citizens will offset the law's shortcomings. In the long term, the feds need to do their job.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
