Archive for the ‘Republicans’ category

On Civil Wars and Symbols

April 11th, 2010

Santa Cruz del Valle de los Caídos

If you take a bus ride from Madrid to El Escorial Palace, you will at some point see in the distance an enormous cross jutting 500 feet out from the valley like a scar across the sky. It is the largest cross in the world. It is the Valle de los Caídos, a monument built by Francisco Franco as a memorial to those Nationalists (pro-Franco) who died in the Spanish Civil War. His body now rests within the basillica below the cross. It was partially built with labor from Republican (anti-Franco) prisoners. Many died during its construction. And it remains a controversial and painful reminder of a terrible time in Spanish history.

The right-wing People’s Party has long held that the past should remain in the past. That there were atrocities on both sides and Franco was a complicated and maybe even ultimately necessary figure for the Spanish people. The left-wing PSOE (socialist party) which is now in power has, like many Spaniards, an uncomfortable feeling about what to do with this symbol of Nationalist victory. Certain symbols from that time are rarely seen anymore. The Spanish flag with the black eagle is rare while there remains supporters of the old Spain under Franco.

After the transition to democracy, there was a Pact of Forgetting that was felt to be the only way to move forward. It allowed past Nationalists to participate in the nascent democracy. Spain placed its eyes firmly forward and not to the past.

But ghosts refuse to stay silent. Mass graves have been found. Families want their relatives’ bodies returned. Judges have called for a review of past war crimes. The Socialist government has spoken of changing this Valley Cross to that of a memorial for Spain on its way to Democracy. While I lived there, the government removed the final statue of Franco, late in the dark of the night without notice.

But unlike South Africa and many other countries, there has not been a Truth and Reconciliation process; and that cross still divides.

Recently in the United States, governors of several southern states have declared Confederacy History months. In large parts of the south, it is not unusual to see the Confederate Flag flown. Many of these governors and southerners want to talk about the South and its role in the American Civil War as if that flag were not a symbol of treason and white supremacy. That it symbolizes a lifestyle that was divorced from its slavery. The Original Sin of the United States, the founding of this country as a slave owning country is part and parcel of the Civil War. Sadly, in both Spain and the US, religion is often connected hand in hand with these symbols.

That Confederate Flag will always be tied to slavery and the South. As slavery will always be tied to the South. The terrible Civil War that led to the deaths of 2% of all Americans at the time, and a 100 years of poverty and limited progress in the old Dixie slave states.

Right wing Americans go to pains to define that symbol as not a racist one; as something that beckons to a time that needs to be honored and commerated. Yet it is not surprising to note that the flag’s presence is more common when issues of racism are up and front in this country: during the civil rights battles of the 50s and 60s, some states added the Confederate Flag to their state flag; and now, when Northerners are prominent in the government and we are led by our first African-American president.

This flag is a wound on our country’s soul. I am frustrated to read its defense by politicians. Recently the governor of Mississipee said that the issue of slavery was not a major issue in the Civil War, joining his peer from Virginia.

When we talk of Confederacy History month, or of the “War of Northern Agression,” we are celebrating the darkest part of our National story. There is nothing to celebrate here. There is no way to detach this symbolism from its message of hate. There was no glorious past of this country that include slavery, Southern or Northern.

Perhaps it’s time for our own Truth and Reconcilation.

OK. I may have misjudged…

February 4th, 2010

I have been beyond frustrated with the President’s slow progress on the DADT and other LGBT issues. Frankly, a lot of what he has done is far too “center-right” in its policy tone for me. But that’s a different blog entry. For now, all credit is due the President. I believe he has handled a complicated management and policy problem (not to mention political problem) in a way I actually find I work myself. He has lined up as many ducks in a row as he can and has put the Republicans in a very tight place. Republican after republican have stated in the past that they would defer to the military’s opinion on DADT.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in October 2009 that for a reversal of DADT to be successful, there would have to be a “buy-in by the military.”

“They should be included in this,” said Graham. “I am open-minded to what the military may suggest, but I can tell you, I’m not going to make policy based on a campaign rally.”

Former Massachusetts governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney in a November 2007 debate was asked if he looked forward to “a day when gays can serve openly in the military?”

“I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say,” he replied.

In another Republican presidential debate a month later, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee joined Romney in insisting that the country needed to hear first from military command.

“I probably would let the military make that decision,” he said, when pressed. “One thing I don’t think you need is a president who’s trying to tell the military how to run the military, other than set broad policy agenda. The Uniform Code of Military Conduct is the best way to handle that and I would leave it to — to those who run the military.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okl.) has insisted, as recently as 2009, that he would “defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness.”

In a 2008 interview, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) defended DADT as a sound military policy by arguing that he had not “sensed that the military is calling for a change.”

Any change to these sorts of comments will again show the blunt bigotry that truly lies behind these men.

I truly don’t believe that this can be done overnight.  I think a year is reasonable.  My fear was always that the President would not do anything on this at all.  It now appears he may have been doing quite a lot.  Recently joining in with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is now the former man that held that position; a man who helped to draft this policy:  Collin Powell.

So Mr. President, when I’m wrong, I’m wrong.  So far on this, I am feeling a lot better.  Now about that other stuff…oh, just let well enough alone, Lynch.

Pre-SOTU thoughts

January 27th, 2010

I have been an enthusiastic supporter of the President while he was campaigning. My problem with him since then is that he doesn’t appear to be the same person. We as progressives deal in a media environment in which the assumption is that we are a conservative country. This despite much evidence to the contrary. And there is some evidence that the GOP is misreading the public in this way again. Mike Lillis via Andrew Sullivan:

But while Republicans are hoping Brown’s victory foreshadows a GOP landslide, a number of political experts are warning that the country’s restless anxiety — as evidenced not only in Massachusetts, but in Virginia, New Jersey, and now Florida as well — is less a backlash against Democrats in particular than a rebuke of the business-as-usual politics of Capitol Hill in general. Even as unemployment soared and housing markets tanked, voters have watched lawmakers bicker endlessly over a stimulus bill that proved too small and a health reform proposal that remains unfinished. Meanwhile, the banks have bounced back on the wings of a taxpayer bailout, paying out billions of dollars in employee bonuses this month while the jobs crisis outside Wall Street only worsens. In such an environment, some experts caution, incumbents on both sides of the aisle could find themselves surprisingly vulnerable in November.

I have no doubt that he will give a stemwinder of a speech.  I’m just not sure what he really stands for anymore.  I want to see him fight.  He will bring up again a call to end DADT, but we’ve heard this before.  He will announce some spending freezes.  He is beginning to play more and more on the conservative side of the field.  I hope we see a change in this.  Not just from the speech, but from his actions.

I’m still bewildered by the Democratic Party’s inability to pass anything progressive or within a fairly centrist Democratic Party agenda.  We shouldn’t go Bill Clinton’s way.  No small ball.  The country needs more.

As an aside, can anyone tell me the last major piece of progressive/liberal legislation that has been passed in the country.

Perspective

January 19th, 2010

Swinging around the web tonight, you’d think we had just overrode the US Constitution. We do need a little perspective. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. We should have won. Mr. Cosmo was incoherent on policy issues and yet he won. So be it. It’s not as if we really got a lot out of having 60 votes. Especially when those votes included Joe from Connecticut, among others.

The important thing is that we can not allow this to be spun as a repudiation of Obama, progressive policies, health care, or the Democratic agenda. We must keep pressure on the party to pass the damned health care bill, job stimulus legislation, and of course LGBT rights issues.  It’s going to be harder now.  Maybe in the end that will be good.  As you may know, I’m not a fan of either party.  My political beliefs don’t have any political party in this country.  But, yikes, we got to keep on fighting.

What we do need is for the Democratic Party to seriously work at passing its agenda. Use reconciliation if you need to. Play every damned trick the Fox/Republican party has used. These are seriously crazy people. We should not be losing to them. We should fight them every step of the way.

The Coakley Blues in the Bay State

January 18th, 2010

I have no idea what is going to happen in tomorrow’s special election to replace the seat once held by Ted Kennedy.  I don’t watch CNN, MSNBC, or Fox any more; I had found my general sanity had become more and more at stake.  But if you were to read the blogs and watch the network news, this is a forgone conclusion.  The Democrats are screwed.  It’s impossible to know from those sources what to take.  The cliche of course is that any news, good or bad, is always bad news for the Democrats as far as the media is concerned.  The news loves a story, and this would be a huge story.  It would be spun as a repudiation of Obama and health care and the end of the democratic party agenda.  That assumes it has had a coherent agenda, but you get my point.

The Repubs are energized to vote in Mass. and the Democrats are not.  That will be the tale.  If Coakley loses, a lot of recrimination will come about the time we’ve waisted trying to get bipartisan support for a health bill, and our lack of willingness to fight for anything.  It’s pretty known that I’m a bit down on the first year of the Obama presidency.  But the biggest fear I carry now is that the Blue Dog Dems will read a Bay State loss as vindication for their view that we’ve gone to far to the left.  I can’t for the life of me name one single left wing policy that we’ve passed except for the stimulus package as a Keynesian response to a tragic economic environment.  Our final health care bill is a pretty market friendly conservative bill that has some good things about it.

But here’s to hoping that the media is doing what they often do, build a story that really isn’t there.  Remember the Teabagger dude in upstate New York?  Didn’t win, did he?  In the end, we’ll know what we know tomorrow.  And don’t let anyone tell you the know what’s happening and what it all means.

Post script:  I mentioned yesterday the lovely comment that one of Republican Scott Brown’s supporters used in a rally (“let’s shove a curling iron up her ass”).  I just felt compelled to remind people of a bit of Scott Browns past and perhaps hanging out with people calling for rape isn’t a great idea when you’ve posed for this: (for real, him, years ago)

Stunning Development from Supreme Court

January 11th, 2010

Yes, I am being sarcastic. To no one’s surprise the Supreme Court has stayed the order to post delayed court proceedings on youtube. The possible retribution to those bigots may be too great a burden for this once great country to bare.

This whole trial has always scared me. Yes, the facts are on our side, the Constitution is on our side, precedent is on our side, and the American Exceptionalism is on our side. Yet, the bigots hold a lot of power.

President Obama has stayed silent. The Court is stacked against us. This is not a legal issue, but a political issue in practice. Can you imagine President Obama doing what Eisenhower, Truman, Kennedy, or Johnson did to uphold the rule of law? The administration is already ignoring court orders to give spousal benefits to a government employee. Just ignoring it. Yikes.

I’m Mr. Grumpy today.

McCain’s campaign manager takes on Palin

January 10th, 2010

I know everyone says that the Democratic party is in big trouble in the upcoming 2010 elections, but this sort of in-fighting on the Republican side, as well as the crazy tea-party movement is very underreported.

A couple of interesting articles about the US v the world

January 7th, 2010

The first article is basically a response to the always frustrating New York Times columnist Ross Douthat’s recent statements about the relative strengths of the American capitalism system to the more European Social Democratic model used in nearly all of the original and 1982 expanded EU.  There really are no “socialist” countries in Europe despite what the Repubs will tell you.  Social Democrats are capitalistic countries that believe in regulated capitalism and a significant social safety net.  Gee, sounds good to me.  And from experience, it seems to work well.  But Ross opines:

Social democracy has its benefits, but global competitiveness isn’t one of them. As Jim Manzi points out, in an essay on “Keeping America’s Edge” in the latest issue of National Affairs, “from 1980 through today, America’s share of global output has been constant at about 21 percent. Europe’s share, meanwhile, has been collapsing in the face of global competition — going from a little less than 40 percent of global production in the 1970s to about 25 percent today.”

The always interesting Matthew Yglesias responds:

Jon Chait, for his new blog, delves in deeper and discovers a few salient points. One, Manzi is comparing US economic performance since 1980 to European performance since 1973—which is nuts. Two, Manzi is defining “Europe since 1973″ to include the Soviet Union and sundry Central European countries that spent half that period in the Communist bloc:

So, let’s look at a straight-up measure. How did the United States perform in comparison with European social democracies? Well, since 1980, the original 15 members of the European Union saw their real per capita income grow by 58%. Real per capita GDP in the United States grew by… 63%. And that measure actually overstates the difference. The European Union does not include Switzerland, Norway or Iceland — three countries that clearly qualify as European social democracies. Those three countries had 71% growth in per capita GDP since 1980 — thanks to Isha Vij of the Center for American Progress for pointing this out to me — which, if added to the EU 15, would bring the growth record of the United States and the social democracies even closer to parity.

Even more interesting to me is that though the US and the EU are pretty much at parity a key difference is the distribution of a county’s wealth.  In Europe you will find far fewer very wealthy people and far fewer very poor people.  So the difference is really in the distribution of wealth and a philosophy about how a society cares for its citizens.

Over the last 30 years in the United States, we have been indoctrinated by media, pundits, the Republican party and others that only our system creates wealth.  Closer to the truth is that we are unique in how we distribute that wealth among our people.  Rarely in Europe would you find an executive making more than say 8 times their lowest paid employee.  In the US private sector, we see orders of magnitude above this.  But we are so sure that no other system works, that the mere mention of a “European” system can kill any progress here in the US.  And the Dems are as much to blame as the Repubs.  Democrats constantly live looking over their shoulder in fear of being called socialist or a dove on foriegn policy.

We could use a little bit of adult behavior.

The other fascinating article is by one of my favorite writers, James Fallows, who has an interesting take on returning to the US after 3 years of living in China.  I can say that after my time living overseas, I have been struck by several things:  the amount of poverty apparent everywhere, the dirt of the city, the number of mentally ill people on the streets, and vast disparity of those with money and those without.  Read the whole article, its a great read.

Republicans: Use a death for political reasons – never!

August 28th, 2009

Ok, I have a little experience in watching Republicans use funerals for political gain.  I was widely quoted for saying that, hey, you know, maybe we should dial it back a bit.  Well, it seems the republicans are very concerned about how Kennedy’s death will affect the health care debate.  They are afraid that it will become politicized.  

So here comes Pastor Huckabee, the most honest man in America saying that essentially, Teddy would have died much earlier if we had the health care plan that Obama wants.  

The 2008 Republican presidential candidate suggested during his radio show, “The Huckabee Report,” on Thursday that, under President Obama’s health care plan, Kennedy would have been told to “go home to take pain pills and die” during his last year of life.

“[I]t was President Obama himself who suggested that seniors who don’t have as long to live might want to consider just taking a pain pill instead of getting an expensive operation to cure them,” said Huckabee. “Yet when Sen. Kennedy was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer at 77, did he give up on life and go home to take pain pills and die? Of course not. He freely did what most of us would do. He choose an expensive operation and painful follow up treatments. He saw his work as vitally important and so he fought for every minute he could stay on this earth doing it. He would be a very fortunate man if his heroic last few months were what future generations remember him most for.”

Of course, every last word of the good reverend is an absolute lie.  My head is spinning with what the Republicans are throwing out there this week.  Tagging Obama so he can be hunted down and shot, looking for the “last great white hope” to take on the president, and anything Glenn Beck is doing right now deserves its own wing at the psychiatric hospital.

 

They are willing to tell these lies because they know that the future success or failure of the Presidency is tied to health care.  That’s the real agenda.  But they are really willing to go to some pretty scary places.

 Todd Gitlin reports that Grassley was silent when a town meeting nutter called the President a Nazi and said he wanted to kill him. The Senator from Iowa is making a first-class fool of himself these days.

A Republican response to a real health crisis

August 25th, 2009

Senator Coburn responds to one of his constituents in what can only be described as cold comfort.  Alone among industrialized and developed democracies, we are willing to leave our friends and neighbors on their own.  A government should be able to take care of its ill and its infirm.  What else is there to do?