THE WAR AGAINST WOMEN - THE WAR AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY

In 2010 the radical right wing tea party Republicans won elections throughout the nation for state legislative seats with a well financed and structured attack on the Obama administration and as a result of  the terrible state of the economy due to the Bush-Cheney depression.  But these radical right wing tea party Republicans didn’t proceed to do anything about the economy because they couldn’t. Their philosophy on economic matters is to let the market place solve things by waiting - that’s what Hoover did in 1929; he waited until the nation threw him out in 1932.  So the radical right wing tea party Republicans turned their attention to social issues and an attempt to re-fight and this time win the culture wars of the 1960's/1970's.

First, to make sure they would be able to stay in power they got as many states as they controlled to pass measures to restrict people’s ability to vote.  That’s the reason for the phony Photo ID laws to prevent people from doing what no one was doing, i.e. impersonate someone else when they went to vote.  These laws are designed to prevent those without id’s mostly young people, the elderly and African Americans and many urban dwellers from voting.  Fact that most of those demographics vote Democrat was an incentive to the radical right wing tea party Republicans  to pass the bills. Hopefully the past will hold in the future and those still allowed easy access to the franchise will vote for candidates who will repeal these laws and continue the two hundred year American march to universal adult suffrage.

Finally this year the radical right wing tea party Republicans decided to declare war on women.  They couldn’t be sure that the Supreme Court, even though packed with conservatives now, would repeal Roe v. Wade so they first went after Griswold v. Connecticut.  That earlier case had struck down a state law against contraception and first enunciated the idea that the 9th Amendment (one of the original Bill of Rights) provided our citizenry with a right to privacy. The right to privacy became the underpinning to Roe v Wade which guaranteed women the right to make their decisions regarding carrying to term or terminating a pregnancy.  The radical right wing tea party Republicans have now begun to pass any kind of bill they can think of that will interfere with and restrict access to women’s reproductive health care.  They use state budgets to cut funding to the worthwhile programs of Planned Parenthood.  In one state they have ordered all doctors to advise women that there is a link between having an abortion and getting breast cancer.  Despite the fact that every organization of physicians and medical experts in America have insisted there is no such linkage.  Now the radical right wing tea party Republicans will substitute the opinion of legislators for that of doctors (that’s what they incorrectly accused Obamacare of doing.)  And most infamously they are passing forced intra-vaginal sonograms for all women contemplating a pregnancy termination.  Legislators should not be mandating such invasive procedures which are available if a woman and her doctor see the necessity or choose to do.

The radical right wing tea party Republicans have decided that among their goals for this year will be winning the war against women and turning back the clock in regard to gender equality.  “Let women remain in the kitchens” as far as these yahoos are concerned - keep them “barefoot and pregnant”.  It is of course frustrating to those of us who lived through the 1960's and the

1970's to witness society undergo again these cultural battles that we thought were resolved by the body politic in our era. 

In the 1960's the issue of racial equality was faced head on and the national consensus by the end of that decade was that all persons regardless of race would be treated equally and would be entitled to exercise their right to vote. In the 1970's the battle of gender equality was waged and, while we failed to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, the society accepted and embraced gender equality as women began to be elected to public office in record numbers and as the Supreme Court recognized that the right to privacy from the Ninth Amendment gave women control over decisions about their reproduction, e.g. use of contraception and termination of pregnancies.  This past decade has seen a great battle by those in our society who choose an alternative lifestyle to heterosexuality to be free from discriminatory practices and all indications are that LGBT folks are winning that battle.

Political decisions and legislation can always be revisited - but when a society goes back and tries to undo major societal consensuses on cultural matters it risks tearing the society to shreds.  Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are not just the slogans of the French revolution. They are the very things that Americans have fought for, that Americans have died for and that Americans today live for. In the 1960's we overcame, in the 1970's we moved forward and now in 2012 we must remember the words of that old spiritual and  “like a tree standing in the water -- we shall not be moved”.

18 March2012

The 2012 Presidential Contest -- Super Tuesday Isn’t Super Anymore.

Super Tuesday, the day that more state primaries/caucuses are held than any other date on the calendar is usually the end point to the presidential primary process.  In most cases it has determined the ultimate nominees and in a few it has narrowed the field down to two remaining competitions for the party’s nod.

2012 has been unique, not in that there is an incumbent in one party thus leaving the primary contest to the other - 1996 and 2004 are recent example s of that.  Nor is it unique in the large number of candidates initially seeking the non-incumbent President’s party’s nomination there were large groups of initial contenders in the 1988 and 2008  Democratic field and the 1996 Republican lists.

What is unique in 2012 is that Super Tuesday turned out not so Super.  Now remember this is a Republican Presidential battle and as always that party is behind the Democratic Party in reforms that open up the system.  So the Republican having embraced caucuses (a poor way to gauge the opinion of all the voters not just activists) and proportional allotment of delegates have failed to recognize that some states using primaries and some states using caucuses with some winner take all and some proportional result in an ultimate decision that does not necessarily reflect the majority of the party’s voters.

This year has become a four way battle which doesn’t seem able to get itself down to two candidates (three if you assume Ron Paul stays no matter what happens). And so with the combination of proportionality and winner take all Romney will ultimately prevail since the remaining votes are invariably split.  But he will also prevail because of Citizens United the Supreme Court decision that handed our nation’s Democracy to the Oligarchs and Billionaires. If a candidate emerges who the media decides can defeat the choice of the Billionaire they spend money to destroy him - in the recent Ohio primary Romney is reported to have spent twelve million dollars in the last week of the campaign - a figure that shocks even hardened politicos.

I am a liberal Democrat -- a New Deal Liberal Democrat.  I agree with the former Senator from Pennsylvania, Rick Santorum, on almost nothing.  But I do agree as Andrew Jackson said “One man with Courage Makes a Majority”.  Santorum’s success in a general election would be a disaster for the future of America.  But every time he defeats or comes close to defeating Romney he strikes a blow against the corporate billionaire takeover of our democracy. Like William Jennings Bryan he preaches a gospel of return to an earlier day, appeals to what is misperceived as a rural simpler America, and wears his patriotism on one sleeve and his religion on the other.  But he is when it comes to campaign money David against Goliath.  He is when it comes to handlers and consultants his own man against “the candidate”.

The 2012 Presidential election may become just another in the long line of contests beginning in 1796 (no one considers the two Washington elections contests).  It may end up being just another re-election of an incumbent President helped along by the mistakes and hubris of the opposition and its candidates (e.g. 2004 and 1996) or it could become perhaps not transformative like 2008 but a “game changer”.  Were Romney to be defeated due to the campaigning of Santorum it could be the beginning of the end of Citizens United.  If the billionaires find out their money won’t buy them the White House they may in their classic way decide to save their money and spend in on better jets or yachts.  I go so far as to say that if Romney were defeated due to the campaigning of Santorum it might restore confidence in the ability of the system to elect the choice of votes not the choice of money. Such a restoration of confidence would be of great help to the liberal Democrats who will face in 2016 the necessity of nominating a candidate to run after two terms of President Obama.  Since Jackson in 1836 only Theodore Roosevelt in 1908 and Reagan in 1988 were successful in having themselves succeeded by members of their own party (with no death causing succession intervening - 1868 and 1948 or outright stealing of the election- 1876.)

Two hundred years ago President James Madison, with the War of 1812 having begun faced his re-elected. He was challenged by a young former Mayor New York City, DeWitt Clinton in the only truly contested Presidential election between 1800 and 1824. Madison won a basically sectional election and went on to watch the White House and most of Washington D.C. burned to the ground by British soldiers. Are we now all to watch as the White House and most of Washington D.C. is bought by the Billionaires?  Some historians contend that the Roman Empire was destroyed by the hordes of barbarians who invaded and sacked the cities and villas; others say that Rome fell when Senate seats were sold and the Senators in turn sold the imperial crown to the highest bidder.     

7 March 2012   

Who Gets On The Ballot Decides Who Wins The Election

I believe in democracy - that is a government which exists by the consent of the governed and whose decisions are made by officials elected by the people.  It may be messy and sometimes slow to progress and often reactionary but in the long run it is the system that best enables people to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - with equality and solidarity thrown in.

Democracy requires free and unfettered elections.  That means a universal electorate of all citizens over a societal determined age - which in the western world has settled around eighteen.   It also means honest voting systems and honest counting; and, most importantly the belief in the minds of the electorate that the count is honest. 

It also requires a societal philosophy of majority rule with respect for the inalienable rights of the minority.  When someone is on the losing side of an election or legislative battle they have to believe that it is their obligation to accept the will of the majority until they are able to join with others in changing it -- or that on some other issue and in some other election their side will prevail and today’s majority become a minority.

When societies are divided not by ideology but by race and/or religion we often find conflict that democracy is hard pressed to resolve.  In those cases the majority religion or race does not see itself as likely to become the minority    So, the success of democracy is dependent upon the majority respecting the rights of the minority.

There is, in addition to the facility with which we enable people to exercise their franchise and the accuracy with which we compile their votes, the complementary issue of how people are allowed to run for office -- ballot access.   In the US the history of democracy has been the enlargement of the electorate and the expansion of the franchise-- allowing absentee ballots and military and overseas ballots. As a body politic we now proclaim support for the concept of “universal adult suffrage”.  

But, what about Universal Ballot Access - that term is not even used in our political lexicon.  Our nation has over fifty sets of laws regulating how someone, otherwise eligible for an office, may present their candidacy and get on the primary or the general election ballot.  Some require filing fees, which in some states are frankly onerous and limit the ability of poor or middle class citizens to get on the ballot.

In other states petitions are used as a method of access to ballot position.  The required number of signatures is often quite large  - independent candidates are usually required to get many more signatures than a party primary candidate  - and the technical details of when, how and who can sign and enter data on the petition are legendary in complexity.  Candidates in petition access states will often find themselves in expensive and time consuming law suits to defend their right to be on the ballot -- legal expenses that far exceed filing fees.  

Of course in Pennsylvania you have both filing fees (moderate in amount which do not cover the cost of operating the petition filing system) and petitions (relatively low in the number of signatures required).  And, of course law suits (second only to New York where election litigation is a thriving specialty) that often keep the voters guessing as to who is on their ballot until just before the primary or election.  Independents in Pennsylvania, like other states, are required to file many multiples of the party candidate required signatures and then face the same legal challenges because of even greater restrictions as to who can sign the independent petitions.

It was said by at least one controversial Democrat, Al Smith, that the only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy.   There is no question in my mind that we stand to lose our democracy to the 1% oligarchs who will rule America unless we overturn the Citizens United ruling of the Supreme Court, and control the use of non-reportable money in our elections.  An equal playing field will never come about until we adopt public financing of elections (in practice today we have taxpayer financing of incumbents through their salaries, earmarks, and their staff and office assistance.)

Getting a handle on the money is not enough to restore true democracy in our country. We need to complement universal adult suffrage (with simplified same day voter registration) with universal ballot access so all can seek office as well as vote.  The nay-sayers will argue that letting everyone on the ballot will produce “frivolous candidacies”. Well, if they are frivolous they’ll lose.  And, if a frivolous candidate wins then as Harry Truman said - the people will get the government they deserve.

27 February 2012

 

PRESIDENT’S DAY - THE HOLIDAY THAT CELEBRATES NO ONE.

When I was a youngster we celebrated Abraham Lincoln’s birthday on February 12 and George Washington’s on February 22nd.  The schools, the newspapers and the TV used these holidays as occasions to remind and educate Americans about how George Washington led the Continental soldiers in the American Revolution and went on to become not King but our first President and established the federal government.  And similarly, Abraham Lincoln was rightly praised as the man who saved the union and abolished slavery.

Then the interests of the economy, and the desire to have three day weekends, ran into the inconvenience of two major holidays in the same month.  You see neither Washington’s nor Lincoln’s parent had the foresight to consider national holidays when they conceived and gave birth to these great men.  So the political and business and labor leaders of the post WWII era decided in their wisdom that we should celebrate these holidays not on the 12th nor the 22nd but on a Monday in February (certainly not two Mondays in February).  Now it could have been called Washington-Lincoln day but no that was too simple.  The advocates of honoring other Presidents such as Jefferson and the two Roosevelt’s entered into the national discussion and the resultant idea was President’s Day -- one Monday in February. So folks would have a three day weekend between New Year’s and Easter, and people could honor and celebrate all the Presidents or at least those that regions and population groups and ideological organizations wanted to memorialize.

Initially there was some effort to expand the base of honorees.  Jefferson was lauded for his authorship of the Declaration of Independence (some quarter century before he was President) and his Louisiana Purchase.   Teddy Roosevelt was celebrated for his Rough Rider charge up San Juan Hill (a few years before he became President).  Wilson was remembered for trying to prevent another World War (he failed) and of course in the post WWII era Franklin Delano Roosevelt was memorialized for leading our nation through the Great Depression and the Crusade to defeat fascism and Nazism.

But celebrating a number of Presidents one, two or three dozen never caught on.  Just as the American people seem uncomfortable considering more than two candidates for the office of President they seem incapable of honoring a multiplicity of holders of the office.  By the time right wingers had a hero to celebrate in Ronald Reagan, their  victor of the war against communism, President’s Day had already become just another excuse for retail sales (using images of Washington and Lincoln) or bargaining chips with unions over which holidays would be paid.

No one every seemed to push the idea of honoring the office of President.  Just as Arbor Day and even now Earth Day have lessened in the public consciousness, Holidays seem to need a people connection or a tie-in to a major event.  Independence Day presumably will not disappear from the popular mind as Armistice Day has - although there is a real effort to make it Veteran’s Day a remembrance of those who fought for our country but it has to compete with another Holiday - Memorial Day.   The latter was first recognized after the Civil War and the Nov 11th holiday came after World War I.

And so now we have a day in February when we no longer focus on Abraham Lincoln or George Washington.   And, we don’t honor others, e.g. FDR and Reagan.  In the two hundred and twenty-three years that the United States of America has existed we have had some 43 men serve as President -- some great, some good, some mediocre and some downright incompetent.  But a nation that has been populated by hundreds of millions of people, and that prides itself on such a longevity of constitutional succession in its highest national office, surely could have found a way to honor those chief executives.

Winston Churchill said of America that we always do the right thing after we try everything else. Maybe it’s time to try a new approach to honoring our Presidents’ with a Holiday.  Maybe Washington/Lincoln day in Feb and Roosevelt/Reagan day in a month that has some meaning to both of them and needs a holiday.  If we continue this mythical Presidents’ Day to honor all  the Presidents we will continue to have what we have now -- a Holiday that honors no one.

20 February, 2012