The K.F. Stone Weekly

The Children's Hour

  

   What's this, yet another article on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor?  Haven't we already read, watched or listened to enough of them in the past seventy-two hours to last a lifetime? 

   You betcha!  And that's why this piece, "The Children's Hour," is not about the Sotomayor nomination.  

  Well, not exactly . . .

  To be perfectly honest, it is about one aspect of the nomination -- the politics of it all . . . 

  Today's New York Times contains an article detailing the slow, deliberate, obsessively thorough process the president and his staff employed in finally settling on Judge Sotomayor. Understandably, this process began back in late 2008, when Mr. Obama's title was still "President Elect." This only makes sense, for Mr. Obama and his advisers knew full well that before too long they would have the duty and honor of nominating someone for the nation's highest court, and they wanted to select the perfect person. Being political pros with a thorough knowledge of political history made the Obama team acutely aware of several facts:

• That the process of confirming a Supreme Court nominee is a high stakes political chess match;
• That other administrations have lost matches by being improperly prepared.
  
• That the other side has been prepping for the match just as long and as hard as you have;
  
• That even when "check mate" is pretty much a given -- as in the case of Judge Sotomayor -- you must nonetheless prepare for the match as if the odds were overwhelmingly against you and,
  
• That the spoils of victory -- the glory of "check mate" -- can be far greater than the seating of a single justice.        
  

   In making their selection -- preparing for the match -- the Obama team had two very unique things going for it:

• A president with a greater knowledge of law -- and specifically Constitutional Law -- than perhaps any president in American history, and
• A Vice President who had voted on the confirmation of every member of the current court.  

 To be sure, the Republicans have also been meeting, planning and strategizing over this upcoming political chess match since late last year.  But interestingly, their goal has not been identifying the perfect strategy by which they could defeat Mr. Obama and whoever his nominee turned out to be.  Rather, it was putting together a game plan that could fatten their coffers, stir up their base, and hopefully put them in better shape for the upcoming 2010 elections. Don't take my word for it.  Even before President Obama announced Judge Sotomayor's nomination, Wendy Long, counsel for the conservative Judicial Confirmation Network characterized the upcoming fight as "a basis for a Republican renaissance. . . . If there is any issue that can get dispirited Republicans ginned up . . . its a Supreme Court fight."  Or, read the words of conservative activist Richard Viguerie, who told the New York Times even before Obama had named his choice that the fight over a Supreme Court nominee, "[is] an immense opportunity to build the conservative movement and identify the troops out there.  It's a massive teaching moment for America.  We've got the packages written.  We're waiting right now to put a name in."

  No matter who President Obama would have nominated for the Supreme Court, the Republicans already had their script,  their strategy -- Viguerie's "package" -- fully prepared:

• To characterize the nominee as a "far left liberal."
• To question the nominee's intellectual heft.
• To accuse the nominee of being "an activist judge."
• To warn that the nominee is one who favors "legislating from the bench."
• To pick out one or two out-of-context statements or legal decisions by to characterize the nominee.      

  This is precisely what the "RNC [Rush-Newt-Cheney] Axis" have done.  Everyone from Sean Hannity and Pat Buchanan to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times have characterized Judge Sotomayor as "gruff," "intellectually challenged," the most far-left judge in American history," and "a reverse bigot."  They have characterized her decision in the New Haven case [one out of literally thousands in which she has participated] as an example of "judicial activism," [Note: In that controversial decision, Judge Sotomayor ruled against 18 white firefighters, including one Hispanic, in their lawsuit against New Haven, Conn., after city officials scrapped a promotional test that showed the plaintiffs more eligible for advancement within the fire department. The white firefighters scored much better than their African-American peers on the test.] Say the facts of the case had been different (that the city of New Haven had let the test results stand and plaintiffs had been the African-American firefighters) and Judge Sotomayor had ruled in the city's favor -- Republicans would have then gladly patted her on the back and said that she was merely applying the rule of law and respecting New Haven's sovereignty.  When Republicans agree with a ruling, the judge is a "strict constructionist."  When they disagree, the judge is an "activist."

   Likewise, Judge Sotomayor has been repeatedly taken to task for an October 2001 speech she gave at the Berkeley La Raza Law Journal's 12th annual symposium.  The part of her speech that her detractors have excised and repeated ad nauseum has Judge Sotomayor stating, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." This one sentence -- lifted out of context -- has caused Republican commentators to  refer to her repeatedly as a "bigot" and "reverse racist."  Yesterday Newt Gingrich Twittered:

Imagine a judicial nominee said 'my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman' new racism is no better than old racism.  White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.

   The problem with all this is that her detractors have chosen to leave out what Judge Sotomayor said next in that Berkeley speech:

"Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations."

   When these words are added, it becomes rather clear -- at least to me -- that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is no racist -- reverse or any other kind.

   Interestingly, the vast majority of all the negative comments about Sonia Sotomayor are coming not from members of the United States Congress, but from their sideline, unelected "Marching and Chowder Society" -- from the likes of Rush, Newt, Michael Steele, Ann Coulter, Matt Drudge and the rest. 

   It would appear that Congressional Republicans are exercising a bit of taste, and restraint.  Some of them understand that this is a chess match they are going to lose; that Sonia Sotomayor is going to be seated on the Supreme Court.  Further, some recognize that adopting the RNC Axis' stridency, will neither refill their coffers nor add new members to their party.  They have already lost much of the Hispanic vote -- the fastest-growing segment of the voting public. They don't score well with women, the better-educated, Northeastern urbanites . . . perhaps even Yankee fans for all I know.  To bitterly and publicly oppose Judge Sotomayor's nomination is a horrific strategy in a political chess match that they are already on track to lose.

  Do the Hannaty's Coulters, Buchanans and O'Reillys of this world really, truly believe that Sonia Sotomayor is a dangerous fire-breathing ultra liberal judicial activist?  Does Karl Rove really, truly believe that Judge Sotomeyer is of questionable intellectual ability? [He who attended at least 5 colleges, never got a degree and was responsible for the nomination of that intellectual giant Harriet Miers!]  For that matter, does Rush Limbaugh really, truly believe that President Barack Obama is a "dyed-in-the-wool Marxist Leninist hell bent on turning America into a Socialist-Communist nation?"

   Obviously, the answer to the above is either "Yes" or "No."

   I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and say:

   "No, they  really, truly don't believe all the things they say about Judge Sotomayor, President Obama, the Democratic Party and 1,001 other things.  They just say these things because it's great for their ratings, guarantees they will continue making millions upon millions of dollars, and continues to feed their perpetually starving egos."

   What they either don't realize -- or worse, don't care about -- is the extraordinary damage they are doing to our Democracy.  They are treating serious issues as just more fodder for entertainment.

   This week it's Judge Sonia Sotomayor single-handedly destroying the American judicial system.  Last week it was National Health Care as the precursor to a Communist takeover. And next week?  Who knows.

   One thing I do know . . . and this really, truly angers me, is how childishly, how cavalierly, all these so-called "shapers of public opinion" go about frightening the daylights out of a vast swath of the American public.  It's frighteningly reminiscent of Lillian Hellman's "The Children's Hour."

   For those who don't remember, Hellman's play is set in an all-girls boarding school run by two women, Karen Wright and Martha Dobie. Mary Tilford, an angry, spiteful student, runs away from the school, and to avoid being sent back, tells her grandmother that the two headmistresses are having a lesbian affair.  The accusation -- which suits Mary's diabolic purposes even though she is constantly aware of the fact that it's a lie -- destroys the women's careers, relationships and lives.  To my way of thinking, there are a lot of folks out there who are auditioning for the part of Mary Tilford -- spreading horrendous untruths because it suits their diabolic purposes.

   The politics behind a Supreme Court nomination should be more like a championship chess match than a lamentably long-forgotten -- though eminently relevant -- Broadway Play.

   So why does the current match feel more like Lillian Hellman than Gary Kasparov?

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

  

Which Came First?

  
   It's simply amazing how many gifted writers and thinkers have given serious quality time pondering that greatest of all causality dilemmas, namely "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" 

• Aristotle was greatly puzzled by the idea that there could be a first chicken or a first egg, and concluded that both must have always existed.
• Plato got around having to answer the question as asked by declaring that "Everything before it appeared on earth had its first being in spirit."
• Stephen Hawking, argued that the egg likely came before the chicken, but that the real importance of the question has greatly faded since Darwin's "On the Origin of the Species," and his accompanying Theory of Evolution.

      Before getting on to my answer, permit me to pose a similar dilemma of causation:

    Which came first . . . the Jew or the anti-Semite?

   Believe it or not, over the course of decades, I have given a lot of thought to this question, and have somewhat cheekily concluded the following: That if God, in his or her infinite wisdom had not created the Jew as an eternal witness to all of human history, the anti-Semite, in his or her infinite wickedness would have done so just in order to possess an eternal target for baseless, ignominious blame. 

   Well, I did say my conclusion was a might cheeky, didn't I?  

   One might think that after the Holocaust, humanity would have smothered anti-Semitism; that that particular strain of malevolent psychosis would have been extirpated.  But no, it did not. And while I am not one of those who see an anti-Semite lurking behind every rock or shadow, it nonetheless staggers me to realize how many people do continue to fear, loath or hate the sons and daughters of Israel.  And what is even more staggering is the realization that some of the worst fear and loathing exists in countries and among people who have virtually no daily contact with individual Jews, let alone the Jewish community. Many around the globe have convinced themselves that its not Jews they revile; its the Zionists. 

   There are, of course, tens of millions -- if not hundreds -- who have their doubts about whether the Holocaust truly occurred or was just some sort of Zionist invention. There are also untold millions who possess an unvoiced "knowledge" that all Jews know and communicate with one other; that there is truth in the conspiracy "revealed" in The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. And many more believe that we Jews think ourselves to be superior to other peoples; that this is why we call ourselves "The Chosen People."

   Yes, yes, I can hear you at this juncture blurting out "But we don't call ourselves The Chosen People, its God who does."  Of course; you're absolutely correct.  But remember: I'm not reporting on what we say or believe. Rather, I am recounting the idiotic prevarication of our detractors. One question that is rarely asked -- by Jews or Gentiles -- is: "Chosen for what?"  If one were to pose that question to an anti-Semite he or she would likely respond "Chosen to rule the world," or some such nonsense. I think the real answer to the question "Chosen for what?" is simply, "Chosen to exist.  Chosen to be a witness to history in all of its pain and glory."  I firmly believe that at the end of time -- whenever, however or even if that will come about -- at least one Jewish person will remain.  And in that "still small voice" of which the Prophet Elijah spoke, that one Jew will say something like, "You see, all we were trying to tell you was to be nice to one another . . . to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and take care of the stranger, the widow and the orphan.  To make peace where there was strife and to bring light where there was darkness.  But for whatever reason, you just didn't listen . . ." This is not the scenario of a people who are in any manner superior.  What it is is the destiny of a people who have witnessed that which is best and worst in human history.  

   Believe it or not, Jews told jokes during the Holocaust.  There is even a collection of jokes and stories told in the Ghettos and camps.  In one of the most famous, two men meet on the street in Berlin during the dark, dark days of the Depression.  One man asks the other:

   "Why are things so terrible?  Who's to blame?"  The other man responds,

   

  "The answer to your question is simple; there are two groups to blame."

  

   "And who might they be?" the first man asks, all ears.

  

  "Why the Jews and the bicycle riders," he said.

 

    "What in the hell do the bicycle riders have to do with all our problems?" the second man asked.

 

   "Beats me," the first man said, "What do the Jews have to do with all our problems?"

 

   As with most "black humor," this little story carries an underlying truth that is both painful and cogent.  To wit, that for anti-Semites, the Jew is a "straw man," or a "scapegoat" -- a convenient bit of misdirection that keeps peoples' eyes and minds diverted from the true sources of human misery. 

 

   Misdirection, however, can go both ways.  For just as some point an accusing finger at "the pernicious, conspiratorial, venal" Jew in order to have an object of blame, fear and hostility, so too are there those who point accusing fingers at others and call them anti-Semites. Of late, there are a bunch of emails going around the Internet "proving" that President Obama and his administration hate Jews and are intent upon destroying Israel; that the president is a Muslim, that Secretary of State Clinton is an ardent anti-Semite, and that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel is a self-hating Jew.  The purpose of these emails, so far as I can fathom, is to convince as many Jews as possible that the only hope for Israel is supporting the Republican Party -- the only party that truly loves, understands and supports the Jewish State.  

 

   Yes, misdirection can indeed go both directions.

 

   I don't have a snappy answer to the question "Which came first, the Jew or the anti-Semite?"  All I know is that for as long as the Sons and Daughters of Israel have walked this earth, there have been those who have feared and dispised us. Why, I really don't know.

 

   However, when it comes to the chicken and the egg, I think I do:

 

   Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

   Neither one.  What really came first was . . . the question!  

 

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

 

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

    

     Back in the day when I was majoring in Philosophy, I took a whole bunch of courses in Logic -- Aristotelian, Set and Symbolic.  It pains me to admit how little I recall of those subjects, up to and including the names of the professors who taught them.  Well, they did begin, as I recall, at 8:00 a.m., a perfectly indecent hour for anyone attempting to grasp such concepts like "premise," "deduction," and "conclusion." Honest confessions aside, one thing I do recall is how depressing it was to realize that much of what passed for public discourse or argumentation was inherently illogical; or, as they say in the philosophy biz, "fallacious." 

   If I recall correctly, the fallacy behind most political caterwauling was best summed up by the phrase "Post hoc ergo propter hoc," which is Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this."  Or, to put it a bit less literally: "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one."

   Got that?
 
   NO?  Well, perhaps an example would help clarify things a bit.  The example I have in mind has been all over the news these past several days, angering, confusing and numbing just about anyone with a bit of gray matter.  For it is the "He said, she said," "When did she know it and what did she know?" sideshow surrounding the use of torture -- "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" -- during the last administration.  The Republican argument, if I follow it correctly goes something like this:

• The Bush Administration did not engage in torture, only E.I.T.
• If the administration would have engaged in E.I.T., it would have been legal, according to the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel.
• As per our instructions, leaders in the House and Senate -- including then-Intelligence Committee chair Nancy Pelosi -- were fully briefed by the CIA about our use of E.I.T., including waterboarding, which when suiting our purposes, we will continue denying we ever engaged in.
  
• Oh yes, our use of E.I.T. -- including waterboarding -- is what has kept America free of terrorist attacks since 9/11.
• For purposes of damaging the Democrats in general and Speaker Pelosi in particular, we will now stipulate that we did indeed use E.I.T.
  
• Since Nancy Pelosi was briefed by the C.I.A. as early as September 2002 about the use of E.I.T., we will further stipulate that for purposes of culpability, she is as guilty -- if not more so -- than anyone. Therefore, either:

1. The Bush Administration did not torture anyone, or
2. The Bush Administration did use E.I.T., which was all perfectly legal, or
3. The Bush Administration's use of E.I.T. is truly what has kept us from being attacked, or
4. Speaker Pelosi is far, far more culpable than anyone else, because she knew all about it and did not blow the whistle.
5. Not only is she an accessory after the fact; she is a pernicious liar.

     Got all that?  

    It is at this point that the Aristotelian term "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" comes back into play.  For what Republicans like Dick Cheney, Carl Rove and John Boehner are arguing is totally fallacious; that since Nancy Pelosi's briefing came after [post hoc] we had begun torturing terrorists like Abu Zubaydah and Kalid Sheikh Mohammed, it turns out [ergo propter hoc] that not only is she an accomplice; she is the cause of our resorting to such extra-legal activities!

   Yes, I know, it doesn't make an ounce of sense.  But wait . . . there's more!

   The former Vice President has called upon the CIA to release classified documents that he claims will prove "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that the agency's harsh interrogation methods were largely responsible for thwarting further terrorist plots.  On May 14, the CIA released a letter citing pending legal action as the sole reason for keeping the documents under seal.  

   On that same day -- May 14 -- Speaker Pelosi held a press conference at which she bluntly accused the CIA of misleading her and several other lawmakers about its use of waterboarding. For the record, CIA spokesman George Little said "It is not the policy of this agency to mislead the Congress of the United States."  Nonetheless, he refused to answer directly when asked whether the Speaker's accusations were accurate. "We were told that waterboarding was not being used," the Speaker said.  "That's the only mention that they were not using it.  And now we know that earlier they were."

   Shortly after Pelosi's press conference, House Minority Leader John Boehner held one of his own.  When a reporter asked about the Speaker's demand that the CIA release "all details on what members were briefed," and then said that "the CIA deliberately misled her time and time again," Boehner responded, "I think the problem is that the Speaker has had too many stories on this issue . . . . I think she's posed more questions than she's provided answers . . ."  In other words, Boehner is calling the Speaker a liar.  Additionally, Boehner chided the Speaker and other Democrats for not "blowing the whistle" on the Bush Administration for its use of E.I.T. In other words, if they knew about the waterboarding and didn't raise a stink, then they are to blame . . . not the Bush Administration.

   Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

   As dizzying and maddening as all this is, it totally misses the point -- which may, when all is said and done -- be precisely the point.  For in going back and forth as to "When did she know it and what did she know," Republicans and their allies in the media have managed to deflect attention away from the real issue: the morality and legality of the United States engaging in acts of torture.

   Lost in all this fallacious argumentation and finger pointing are two pretty well-grounded -- and under-reported -- facts:

• That a letter from CIA Director Leon Panetta which was attached to the agency documents discussing the September 4, 2002 Congressional briefing [the one that the Speaker disputes] suggests that the information in the documents may not be "an accurate summary of what actually happened."  In his cover letter to current House Intelligence Committee Chair Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) and Ranking Member Peter Hoekstra (R-MI) -- which has generally been overlooked by the media -- Panetta wrote that the information in the attached intelligence documents "is drawn from the past files of the CIA and represents MFRs ["Memorandums for the Record"] completed at the time and notes that summarized the best recollections of individuals involved . . . . You and the committee will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened."
•  That in testimony before a Senate subcommittee investigating Bush Administration interrogation techniques, former FBI agent Ali Soufan told Congress that he witnessed CIA interrogation methods on terror suspects that were, in his words, "borderline torture," and called the methods "ineffective," "unreliable," and "harmful."  Further, Soufan stated that "the informed interrogation approach outlined in the Army Field Manual "is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists;  it is legal and has worked time and again.  It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective and play directly into the enemy's handbook." To a great extent, this refutation of torture went unreported.

    Instead what has captured the attention of both the media and the public is this "he said, she said" nonsense that keeps the debate far away from where it should be. 

   To wit, is torture illegal and immoral?
  
   To give any other answer than "Yes, torture is both illegal and immoral," is to engage in fallacious reasoning.
   
  

   ©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Henry Waxman: The Moustache of Justice

On November 19, 1945 -- barely 6 months after the death of FDR, President Harry S. Truman gave a major address to both houses of Congress.  Unbelievably, his subject matter was neither war nor peace, economy nor education; it was the urgent need for a . . . NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM!  Yes, you read that correctly: a NATIONAL HEALTH CARE PROGRAM!  And this was 1945 . . . nearly 65 years ago. 

   In his speech, the president argued that the federal government should play a major role in health care, saying "The health of American children, like their education, should be recognized as a definite public responsibility."  After addressing five areas of concern -- including the lack of doctors, dentists and hospitals in rural and otherwise depressed areas of America -- Truman got to the controversial meat and potatoes of his talk: NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.  The plan that Truman outlined that day long ago called for a NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE fund, to be run by the federal government.  This fund would be open to all Americans, but would remain optional. 

 Truman's health care proposals came to Congress in the form of a Social Security expansion bill, co-sponsored by Democratic senators Robert Wagner (NY) and James Murray (MT), and Representative John Dingell (MI).  For this reason, it was known popularly as the "W-M-D Bill."  (In light of the fact that today, "WMD" refers to  "Weapons of Mass Destruction," the acronym is more than a bit haunting.) Predictably, the AMA characterized the bill as "socialized medicine," and as a forshpize (Yiddish for "appetizer") to the rhetoric and inanity of McCarthyism, called Truman White House staffers "followers of the Moscow party line."  Eventually -- and despite his prescience -- Truman was forced to abandon the W-M-D bill. 

   Harry Truman was certainly not the last president or national political figure to seriously ponder or propose a system of NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.  In the 1960s JKF and LBJ got America part of the way there with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid -- two programs, which despite being disparaged in some circles as "socialized medicine," have both weathered the test of time.  In the 1990s then-First Lady Hillary Clinton came up with an ambitious NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE proposal which, due to a series of clumsy, ham-handed political maneuvers, died  not with a bang, but rather a whimper. 

   Now, after many years of relative silence, a NATIONAL HEALTH CARE proposal has made its way back to center stage.  But this time it feels different; this time it has a couple of added ingredients:

• A widely supportive American public, a growing percentage of which, can no longer afford health insurance.
• A highly popular, politically deft president who is willing to spend a good portion of his "personality capital" on behalf of something he believes in his heart of hearts is "a right, not a luxury." 
• A business community that is not quite as vociferous or venomous in its opposition as in times past.
• A loud-mouthed opposition that is finding fewer and fewer takers for its dire warnings of "socialized medicine" and other slippery-slope prognostications; and last but certainly not least,
• Representative Henry Waxman.

   How's that?  Henry Waxman?  Why Henry Waxman?

   Henry Waxman has been involved in health issues ever since 1969 -- the year he was appointed to the California State Assembly Health Committee.  A member of Congress for 35 years, Henry is, to my way of thinking as a Congressional historian, one of the five most important and significant people ever to serve in that body -- and that's out of more than 11,000.  It is also likely that Henry Waxman has been responsible for more successful health care legislation than anyone in American history. He has been the sponsor of such measures as:

• The Ryan White CARE Act.
• The Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality and Prevention Act.
• The Safe Medical Devices Act.
• The Orphan Drug Act.

   Over the years, Representative Waxman has successfully led the fight for improved prenatal and infant care for low-income families, and for more services in the community for people needing long-term care.  He has been an advocate for prescription drug coverage in Medicare for people with high drug expenses, and has long pushed for a system of NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. And now, as chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman may finally see his dream come true.

  Ironically, the man Waxman replaced as chair of the committee --  the legendary John Dingell, Jr., -- is the son of the representative who sponsored President Truman's original HEALTHCARE PROPOSAL back in 1945. (The Dingells, pere et fils, have represented Michigan's 15th District since 1933. John Jr., first elected to replace his deceased father in 1955, has now served in Congress longer than anyone in American history.)  Unlike John Dingell, Jr., whom President Bush once called the "biggest pain in the ass" on Capitol Hill, Henry Waxman is well-liked, well-respected, and well-known not only for his tough, principled stands, but for his relentless investigations.  Turn on the TV news almost any night, and there will be Henry Waxman, investigating everything from the use of steroids in Major League Baseball, electrical problems in Iraq, governmental secrecy, and U.S. trade agreements, to military contracts, Medicare fraud and "shortcomings in the third-party food safety audits performed on behalf of the Peanut Corporation of America." If there is one common thread in the myriad issues that capture Representative Waxman's attention, it is justice.  As a short, myopic, unprepossessing man who grew up over his parents' grocery store in a Jewish section of Los Angeles and now -- ironically -- represents some of the richest, most glamorous folks in the world (his district includes Beverly Hills), Henry Waxman has always been on the side of the little person.  To some, he is a self-serving political pariah; for many, he is both a revelation and a legend.  Even Waxman's moustache has a nickname: the "Moustache of Justice."    

   To be certain, there are those who proclaim Waxman to be nothing more than a diabolic, demagogic Democrat -- a man who can barely contain his enthusiasm for having the government "take over" everything from the day-to-day operation of G.M. to health care.  According to these finger-pointers, if Waxman and "his kind" have their way, then health care will become "substandard, subordinate, and apportioned . . . just like Canada and Britain," and "it will be up to some petty bureaucrat whether or not you can see a specialist." Funny, they never say anything about the insurance company wage-slaves who do the same thing -- for the sake of corporate profit.

   The lack of affordable health care has gone beyond the crisis stage in America.  Nearly 50 million of us go without; even a basic HMO-insurance plan now costs more per month than the mortgage on a quarter-million dollar home.  And for many within this group, the only place they can go when they become ill or fall victim to an accident is to the emergency room at the local hospital -- where medical care is not always the best, generally it is the most costly and is always covered by the entire community. Then again, how about all those "preexisting conditions" that health insurers won't cover?  Isn't it wonderful to learn that although they absolutely will not cover you for the high-blood pressure, bad back or digestive tract problems you've had [and could be in remission], they will gladly pay all the costs for anyone contracting Chistosomiasis, Dengue Fever or the Yaws?

   For too many years, our leaders, our legislators, were scared away from promoting -- let alone enacting -- meaningful NATIONAL HEALTH CARE legislation by that great phalanx of lobbyists and interest groups that could make or break them.  And, for far too many of the uninsured, they were told in so many words that NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE was something straight out of the Marx and Engels rule book. Or, if not "socialistic," then a luxury that  one could either work hard enough to afford -- like a Cadillac -- or else admit that the lack of was their own damn fault.   Well, times and understandings have changed.

   Thanks to people like Barack Obama and Henry Waxman, word is fast getting around that NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE is a right, not a luxury.  Thanks to a new generation of activists, NATIONAL HEALTH COVERAGE is going to be enacted.  Thanks to "we the people," the dream of Harry Truman is going to become a reality.  And who knows; perhaps Representative George Miller (CA) and Senator Chris Dodd (CT) will join Henry and make up the new "W-M-D Bill."

   My money is on Henry, so please, let us all pray for the health and the success of the Moustache of Justice.

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Please note that I am now on both Twitter and Facebook.  Hope to see you there as well!  Twitter entries are on the right-hand margin . . .

Was Thomas Wolfe Wrong?

 

   Back in 1940, Harper Brothers published Thomas Wolfe's You Can't Go Home Again.  Published posthumously, You Can't Go Home Again tells the story of George Webber, a young author who writes a novel about his family and home town -- Libya Hill. His book becomes a rousing success everywhere . . . except in Libya Hill.  When George, now a world-famous novelist, returns home, he is unnerved by the force of the outrage and hatred which greets him. The "good folks" of Libya Hill are furious by how many of their "secrets" he has exposed in his novel. Far from being proud of their native son, his former neighbors and school chums begin sending him death threats; George has no choice but to flee.  He then begins a monumental search for his own identity; a search that will ultimately take him to New York, Paris and Berlin.  Despite the high regard he and his novel are held in throughout the literate world, poor George Webber learns a hard and difficult truth: that indeed, Thomas Wolfe was right: You Can't Go Home Again. 

   Or was he?  Oh sure, if we're taking his words literally -- in the sense of Heraclitus' old saw You can't throw the same stick into the same river twice -- then Wolfe was undoubtedly right. Heraclitean flux aside, is it possible that Wolfe was in error?  That there are cases in which one CAN go home again?  

   Fast forward nearly seventy years.  It's no longer about George Webber; now, it's about Arlen Specter.  And, it's no longer about a fictional novelist returning home to Libya Hill; now it's about a flesh-and-blood senator returning "home" to the Democratic Party.  As many people know, the Kansas-born Arlen Specter started out life as a Philadelphia Democrat.  Heck, 45 years ago LBJ appointed him to a high- level position on the Warren Commission, where the then 33-year old attorney became chief architect of what became known as the "single bullet theory."  And most people know that when he wanted to run for Philadelphia D.A. in 1964, he switched to the Republicans.  His reason for the change can be summed up in six simple words: He couldn't win as a Democrat.  [It should be noted that as D.A. he gave his first job to a young Penn law graduate from New York named Ed Rendell, who today is the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania.]

   Just about every political junkie knows that in his career, Arlen Specter has lost about as many elections as he has won. He lost his position as D.A. in 1973, and was beaten in Republican primaries for senator in 1976 and governor in 1978.  In 1980, running once again for the United States Senate, he squeaked by in the Republican primary and then, riding Ronald Reagan's coattails, edged out former Pittsburgh Mayor Pete Flaherty 50%-48% to join "the most exclusive club in the world."  He has been a Republican member of that club ever since . . . until 72 hours ago.  With less than 2 years to go until his next reelection bid, and realizing that he likely would lose in the Republican primary to conservative former House member Pat Toomey [whom he had defeated by an anemic 51%-49% in the 2004 Republican senate primary], Specter decided that his only chance to remain in the Senate was to return "home" to the Democratic fold.

   Throughout his now 29-year senate career, Specter's spot on the political spectrum has been variously defined as "moderate," "independent," "liberal," and "mostly unpredictable."  One of the senate's brightest members, Specter has earned the grudging respect -- if not any honest degree of affection -- of his colleagues.  Truth to tell, Specter has been neither liberal nor moderate, conservative nor, strictly speaking, independent.  And despite the fact that his former colleagues now claim he was always a R.I.N.O. -- "Republican In Name Only" -- it's never been clear what he was -- or will be now that he's a Democrat.  Possibly a D.I.N.O. -- Democrat In Name Only?

    Those who cheer that Specter's defection -- added to Al Franken's eventual arrival -- will give the Democrats a filibuster-proof super majority, might want to stow the pompoms and megaphones.  For although Specter is pro-choice, has no problems with providing federal dollars for stem-cell research and voted against invoking cloture on 163/SJRes 1, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman, he is no wide-eyed Kennedy-style liberal. Over the past 5 years, the liberal League of Conservation Voters has given him an average rating of only 25 [out of 100], the A.C.L.U. a 40, the pro-business Chamber of Commerce a 90, and the conservative Family Research Council a respectable 60.  He is a decided pro-military hawk who voted in favor of providing detainee rights, and a social moderate who also voted in favor of Justices Antonin Scalia, Sam Alieto and John Roberts. [In matter of fact, Specter gave his solemn word to George W. Bush that if the president would support him for Chair of Senate Judiciary, he would in turn give his support to anyone Bush might nominate for the court. 

   As soon as Specter announced his change of party, the White House announced that President Obama would campaign for him in 2010.  Governor Rendell, Majority Leader Reid and senate powerhouse Chuck Schumer have all likewise come on board.  Prior to Specter's defection, it looked like his Democratic opponent would be 7th District Rep. Joe Sestak, a retired two-star admiral and the highest-ranking former military officer ever elected to Congress.  Whether or not Sestak drops out of the primary race is anyone's guess.  What is not in question is the strategy the Republicans will employ in 2010 against Arlen Specter: they will target Democratic districts with campaign spots FOR Arlen Specter delivered in 2004 by none other than George W. Bush!  In political circles, this is known as "taking revenge."

   Despite all their efforts to put a "we-really-could-give-a-hoot-'n-a-holler" spin on Specter's party switch, the GOP is reeling, wondering "what else could go wrong?"  And while it is true that Senator Specter wasn't the most loyal of Republicans, his departure is but one more proof that the "Big Tent" is nothing more than a hollow rhetorical device.  The GOP is obviously floundering, rudderless and in a tailspin to mix several metaphors.  Their base is as small and unenthusiastic as at any time in the past 75 years.  As proof, one need only look at the most recent national polling figures: less than 25% of the American voting public now considers itself Republican.

    But this does not mean that the rest of America is necessarily in love with -- or identifies itself as -- Democratic.  Specter's transfer -- all positive spin to the contrary -- is not proof that all of America is "coming home" to the party of Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton.  For indeed, it is neither the same party nor the same "home."  

   Perhaps Thomas Wolfe was right; you can't go home again.

  Make no mistake about it; Arlen Specter has done what is best for Arlen Specter.  I for one cannot and will not hold that against him; after all, winning is the first rule in both baseball and politics.  And yet, something very very good may come out of it.  I liken Specter's "coming home" to a baseball team's late season acquisition of some gnarled old pro whom they figure might help get them to the World Series.  If he does, they look like geniuses; if not, oh well, you picked him up for a song and won't be resigning him anyway.  In this case, the "team" is the United States Senate; the "late season pickup" is Arlen Specter; the "World Series" is National Healthcare -- something which the senator sees as a right, not a luxury. If Specter's presence on the Democratic side of the aisle can indeed put quality healthcare within the reach of all Americans, then taking possession of the rest of his political baggage will be worth it.

    And if this works, then in a strange sense, Arlen Specter will wind up proving that Thomas Wolfe was wrong; you CAN go home again.  Except in this case, the "home" to which he will be returning is not the Libya Hill of George Webber. . . 

    It is the political party of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman.

   © 2009 Kurt F. Stone