The K.F. Stone Weekly

Clackity Clack, Clackity Clack

 

Audio Link to "Clackity Clack Clackity Clack"

 

Back in the days when the Internet was little more than a glimmer in Leonard Kleinrock's fertile imagination, journalists received and retrieved information via teletype. These steely behemoths -- one for A.P., one for U.P.I. and if lucky, one for Reuters -- droned the steady,
comforting clackity clack without which no newsroom was complete -- or real.  The wire's omnipresent clackity clack, clackity clack, clackity clack provided a muted cadence; it was, in a sense, muzak for newshounds.  About the only time that clackity clack became aurally manifest was when it was replaced by the harsh clanging of an adrenalizing bell.  This meant that a story of great urgency was about to come over the wire . . . all hands on deck!  (The first time I heard that "urgent bell" it was to give a heads-up that singer Jim Croce had died in a plane crash; the second, to announce the kidnapping of Patty Hearst - both major stories.) In those days, a story of developing urgency was a bit of a rarity.  When the bell sounded, everyone was on high journalistic alert.

Fast forward to a time when there is no more clackity clack.  Although certainly neither voiceless nor mute, the Internet and other purveyors of information  have made it virtually impossible to distinguish between the mundane and the momentous.  If the Internet -- or cable -- had an urgent bell, it would be clanging twenty-four/seven.  The rarely-used adrenalizing klaxon of yesteryear has been replaced by a never-ending "headline crawler," which turns every cough into a catastrophe, every misstatement into a moment of truth.  Simply stated, in a world where everything screams "urgent," people become both cynical and desensitized to that which may truly be important; the line between chimerical and critical has become blurred beyond reason.

Case in point: the ongoing Congressional hearings into "getting at the truth about Benghazi." True to form, House Oversight Committee Chair Darrell Issa is doing everything in his power to suggest that the Obama administration -- which of course includes former Secretary of State (and potential 2016 presidential candidate Hillary Clinton) -- has been less than forthcoming about last September's terrorist attack on the Benghazi consulate. (Many will recall an essay I published back in early January of 2011 entitled The Issa Man Cometh, in which I predicted that  left to his own devices, Issa would investigate the dickens out of the Obama Administration.) Arkansas Governor -- and current FOX commentator -- Mike Huckabee has publicly stated that the Benghazi situation is so heinous, so critical -- so urgent -- that the president "will not fill out his full term."  Kentucky Senator Rand Paul told an audience in Iowa that he thinks the Benghazi attack "precludes Hillary Clinton from ever holding office."  

Clackity clack, clackity clack.

Retired Ambassador Thomas Pickering (who received diplomatic appointments by Presidents Carter, Reagan, H.W. Bush and Clinton) who, along with retired Admiral Mike Mullen chaired the Accountability and Review Board which looked into Benghazi, says that Issa's hearings have failed to uncover any new facts or failings. His testimony has basically been ignored. Also, he has been denied the opportunity to appear as a rebuttal witness.  Despite this, Issa and Senators Paul, McCain and Ayotte persist in talking up a Watergate-like cover-up.  

And you had better believe at least a half-dozen other committee chairs are going to institute hearings over recent news that some mid-level IRS people in the Cincinnati office targeted some Tea Party groups for scrutiny.  Apparently, people in that office were investigating whether any of the new tax-exempt organizations created by the Citizens United case were, in fact, thinly-veiled partisan political groups.  To be certain, the IRS isn't anyone's favorite federal agency; especially if you're a member of the Tea Party.  But now, even before all the facts are in and any high-level investigation has even begun, people are referring to "Obama's IRS" -- as if he knows everything every auditor in every office is doing, and actually gave the order to harrass Tea Party groups. 

The clackity clack of normal news has morphed into the urgent claxon if screaming headlines: 

IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT!

WORSE THAN WATERGATE!

OBAMA'S WATERLOO!

Mind you, this is by no means meant to minimize either the horror of Benghazi or the inherent boneheadedness of the IRS screw-up.  I agree with The Daily Beast's Michael Tomasky: "Benghazi at the end of the day was a terrible tragedy in which mistakes, bad mistakes, were certainly made, and in which confusion and the CYA reflex led to some bad information going out to the public initially, but none of this remotely rises to the level of high crime. The IRS cock-up was just that, a mistake by a regional office."

What Issa and a majority of the Republican caucus are after is "proof" that President Obama is guilty of what the Constitution calls "high crimes and misdemeanors," and therefore susceptible to impeachment.  But what precisely are "high crimes and misdemeanors?"  Whatever Congress says they are . . . which makes the current of events all the more frightening. 

Has the president actually committed a crime or impeachable offense?  Of course not.  But hauntingly, in today's political environment, that little fact makes not a wit of difference.  Despite the various hearings, the ink and headlines, the urgent bells and angry posturing, public opinion has not turned against President Obama. According to a poll released by Pew just a couple of hours ago, less than 45% of those polled say they have "paid close attention" to Congressional hearings on Benghazi.  To be certain, the GOP could care less about polling figures; they are content to do their base's bidding, not America's. They are far more interested in politics than policy -- in hamstringing the president, putting a hex on Hillary Clinton and making damn sure that nothing gets done between now and 2016. 

How many times are we going to hear ". . . what did he/she know and when did he/she know it?" with regards to President Obama and Secretary Clinton?  How many times are we going to be subjected to the opinion that "Benghazi is far, far worse than Watergate?"  I daresay more times than we care to count. A witch hunt is a witch hunt no matter which side carries it out.  

Clackity clack, clackity clack . . .

 

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

 

Lunacy Goes Legit

 

Audio Link to "Lunacy Goes Legit"

 

America is a great country.  Our Constitution guarantees the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for both homo sapiens and Home Depot; we grant "personhood" status to zygotes and Zales alike; freedom of religion and expression are both protected and sacrosanct -- regardless of how irreligious the sect or ludicrous the thought.  In this last regard, America is -- and from her earliest days has always been -- an equal opportunity asylum.  Here in America, every nut has its tree, every conspiracy its true believers.  Indeed, one could argue that America was founded on a conspiracy theory. Historian Peter Knight writes in his comprehensive Encyclopedia of American Conspiracy Theories "The conviction that the English colonial policies of the 1760s and 1770s constituted a conspiracy to enslave America played a major role in the outbreak of the American Revolution." Need proof? It's right there in the Declaration of Independence, where the Founders wrote that King George was executing a secret plot with the “direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” 

But this was only the beginning.  Throughout our history, as noted above, we've  been plauged by enough conspiracy theories to fill Joe Robbie (or whatever they call it these days) Stadium. Consider:

 

Back in the late 1830s and early 1840s, an emergent political party -- the so-called "Know-Nothings" -- based its appeal on the unbelievable theory that the Pope was secretly building a trans-Atlantic tunnel through which his troops (including the reviled Irish) could traverse the sea, arrive in Philadelphia and take over America.  These folks actually elected members of Congress and captured several governorships before falling under the weight of its own lunacy.

From almost the moment of his murder, conspiracy theories abounded as to who was really responsible for the death of Abraham Lincoln.  President Andrew Johnson, Lincoln's successor, issued a proclamation offering a reward for the arrest of Jefferson Davis in connection with the Lincoln assassination.  In the 1930s, Austrian-born chemist Otto Eisenschiml published a best-selling book (Why Was Lincoln Murdered?) in which he claimed that a senior member of Honest Abe's cabinet orchestrated the plot. Eisenschiml's claim is still believed by a lot of conspiracy buffs in 2013.

From the very moment of its creation in 1913, the Federal Reserve system has been the launching point for at least a dozen different conspiracy theories; think "New World Order," "Rothschilds," and "Bavarian Illuminati."  Over the past 30 years, former Texas Representative Ron Paul has been banging the Federal Reserve Conspiracy drum louder than just about anyone. Now that he is retired, watch for him to pound this tom-tom even louder.

Add to these such perennial favorites as The Philadelphia Experiment, the poisoning of American minds through fluoridation of water, the UFO (Area 51 -- Men in Black) conspiracy, the Bilderberg Group and the "Manchurian Candidate" murders of both JFK and RFK as well as Martin Luther King and John Lennon -- and my personal favorite, the fake moon-landing -- and there is enough paranoiac fiction to last a lifetime.

It seems that the number of conspiracies from which one can choose has grown exponentially over the past several years.  These include -- but are by no means limited to -- President Obama's foreign birth, government complicity in Waco, Oklahoma City, 9/11 and the so-called "gay agenda"; the introduction of Sharia Law, and ultimate disarming of American citizens; the federal government's outright  purchase of billions upon billions of rounds of ammunition; FEMA-created concentration camps and the push to turn American into a radical Marxist state; and, most recently, the Obama Administration's active involvement in creating the massacres at both Sandy Hook and the Boston Marathon.

Notice a trend?  Where throughout our history, most conspiracies centered on evil outsiders -- papal minions, Soviet Communists, the Elders of Zion -- aiming malevolent arrows at the heart of America, today's conspiracies have identified the federal government itself as the evil "outsider"; the conscious enemy seeking to overthrow the Constitution and its freedoms, the economy -- and indeed, the people itself.

Until recently, it was fairly rare for the average citizen to be aware of the conspiracy theories swirling about sociopolitical empyrean. Until the advent of the Internet, cable and satellite radio, conspiratorial lunacy was, for the most part, reserved for the fringes -- for what I choose to call the "pre-certified crazies" of both the Right and the Left.  Without belonging to a group like the John Birch Society, subscribing to a paranoiac publication like The Watchtower, or tuning in to radio preacher Billy James Hargis' Christian Crusade program, one would never have known of all the "grave threats" and even "graver enemies" facing America.  Up until recently -- and with the exception of Senator Joseph McCarthy's Communist conspiracy campaign -- few if any conspiracy theories ever broke through to the mainstream surface of American politics.

Yesterday's door-to-door conspiracy peddlers have become mega-entrepreneurs.  These are people who, University of Utah historian Robert Goldberg says, ". . . live and die on the sale of tapes, on books and on speaking engagements."  Like a detergent manufacturer always in need of a product that is "new and improved," these conspiracy entrepreneurs "have a constant need to invent new theories because eventually the public will tire of existing ones."  These entrepreneurs -- people like Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and one most readers have never heard of -- Alex Jones -- have become fantastically wealthy peddling paranoid nightmares (as well as tapes, coffee mugs, sweatshirts and -- in the case of Beck -- his own brand of jeans) to the masses.  

Suddenly, lunacy has gone legit.

Just this past week, four Republican members of Congress sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security demanding that the department respond to the charge (promulgated by both Glenn Beck and Alex Jones) that the real Boston Marathon bomber was being shielded by the White House . . . specifically Michelle Obama.  Moreover, one of the four signing on to this letter was none other than Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee! (McCaul, by the way, who is married to the daughter of Clear Channel Communications Chair Lowry Mays, is reportedly worth more than $300 million.)  And then, to make matters even more unbelievable, the House Committee on Government Oversight held a hearing on the Beck-Jones conspiracy which has the federal government stockpiling ammunition in order to . . . in order to what?  According to those who believe this bit of lunacy, it is so that the government can kill any and everyone who disagrees with them.  During the hearing, Michigan Representative Kerry Bentovolio actually asked Humberto Medina, a representative from the Department of Homeland Security whether the government had plans -- in case of civil arrest -- to make mass arrests of American citizens and put them in FEMA camps!  The incredulous Mr. Medina answered in two words: "No plans."  Apparently none too concerned with how ludicrous he looked and sounded, Rep. Bentovolio then asked, "Any other plans for things like that?" to which again, Mr. Medina answered "No plans." Bentovolio ended the colloquy by adding " . . . not yet, huh?" (Emphasis added).

Not to be outdone Oklahoma Senator James Imhofe, firmly believing that the feds are involved in a conspiracy to corner the market on ammunition (for purposes not quite known) introduced legislation to block federal agencies from buying ammunition.  (Wonder if this includes the Army, Navy, Marines and Air Force which are, after all, federal agencies?)

In other words, for the first time in history, lunacy has been given the seal of legitimacy.  Goodness knows it's great for the sale of books, tapes, sweatshirts and coffee mugs.  It's also great for ratings . . . which usually translates into more and more bucks.

What legitimizing lunacy is not good for is America.  We're never going to stop the conspiracy entrepreneurs of the world from making their fortunes by scaring the bejeezus out of the pre-certified; it is part and parcel of free speech.  But when their crazed caterwauling reaches the halls of Congress, one has to be concerned for our future.

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

To Be Sincere or Merely Fake It: That is the Question

 

Audio Link to "To Be Sincere or to Fake It: That is the Question"

 

One of my favorite  M*A*S*H episodes was entitled "Foreign Affairs." Originally run during the series' 11th season, the episode centered around a gorgeous visiting French Red Cross worker (played by Melinda Mullins) who falls for the staid, priggish Major Charles Emerson Winchester III (played by David Ogden Stiers.) At one point, "Martine" (the Red Cross lady), having rebuffed the advances of the randy Hawkeye (Alan Alda), invites Charles to sit with her at the "Old Club."  Seeing this, Hawkeye asks his tent mate B.J. (Mike Farrell), "What did he (Charles) try that I didn't?" "Maybe Sincerity?" B.J. answers. Hawkeye gets the laugh line when he responds "Sincerity?  I could fake that!"

Hawkeye's retort might well serve as the slogan for the Republican National Committee's recently concluded gathering out in Hollywood. For in attempting to figure out what went wrong in the 2012 election and how to fix it in time for 2016, the GOP has essentially come to the same conclusion as the fictional Captain Pierce: when all else fails, fake sincerity. Of course, there are two huge differences between Hawkeye Pierce and the RNC:

1. Hawkeye was -- and always shall be -- a fictional character; the RNC is (supposedly) made up of real people;
2. Hawkeye's aim was to win over a woman; the RNC's to convince women, gays, African Americans, Hispanics and Asian Americans that they really aren't a party that caters only to older white gun-owning Christian men, and that they -- the GOP -- really do share their concerns, respect their differences and speak their language.

Without question, it's a tall order; one, which if it were to succeed, would require a lot of serious soul searching and a newfound commitment to compromise and inclusion.  But alas, it would appear that the RNC, like the beloved Benjamin Franklin Pierce, believes they can fake sincerity and get away with it. 

Without question, the GOP is in a state of utter turmoil.  Its base -- the folks who provide the primary votes -- make up the party's most implacably, unrelentingly ultra-conservative wing. These are the folks who are steadfastly pro-life, pro-gun, pro-balanced budget amendment and anti anything proposed by any Democrat. For the most part, these are the ones who believe that the president and his party are
committed Marxists; malevolent spores of Satan consciously turning America into a nation of takers.  This, the GOP base, is made up mostly of white males -- and a few women.  They are at odds with the party's less ultra-conservative, more institutional wing; those who seem to understand that if their party is ever to recapture the White House, they'll need to make some serious changes.  On the surface, they "get it."

 Or do they? 

According to reports coming out of the Hollywood conference, the 168-member RNC seems to have concluded that the party's problem is not with their positions . . . it's with the manner in which they broadcast or express those positions.  During their four-day get-together, they refused to face up to the central problem facing their party: that their stance on issues such as marriage, reproductive rights and President Obama's healthcare plan are diametrically at odds with some of the very voters they are trying to win over. Fascinatingly, many of those attending the Hollywood conference rejected any suggestion that Republican positions in 2012 alienated voters in those key groups (single women, African-Americans, Hispanics, etc.) -- insisting that the party lost because Mitt Romney was a weak candidate.  Instead of rethinking positions, they concluded, all they need is a change in perception.

In other words, fake sincerity. 

The conference was addressed by a handful of Hispanic, African-American and Indian-American speakers, all of whom pledged to work hard convincing their various communities that the GOP stands with them.  And yet, at the very moment its  leaders were seeking to put a better, more inclusive, open-minded face on their party, House Republicans were doing what they do best: standing steadfastly against the 21st century.

On Thursday, Connecticut Democratic Representative Rosa DeLauro, the sponsor of the "Paycheck Fairness Act" filed a discharge petition. This petition would have immediately forced a vote on her bill -- which mandates that men and women doing the same jobs should receive the same pay -- if she could collect 218 signatures.  Democrats also put forth a motion known as the "Previous Question," which would have enabled them to put the act up for a vote.  However, virtually every single House Republican voted against the Previous Question; they killed the effort by a vote of 226 to 92.

Unbelievably, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) said on the House Floor Thursday afternoon that DeLauro's bill is a "liberal plot" meant to perpetuate the narrative that Republicans are somehow anti-woman. DeLauro countered that she has yet to hear a reasonable excuse for Republicans to oppose the bill.  (n.b. Recent Census Bureau data shows that full-time working women make 77 cents for every dollar men make per year. The Paycheck Fairness Act, which DeLauro has introduced in eight consecutive Congresses, would expand the Equal Pay Act to close certain loopholes and allow employees to share salary information with their coworkers. It would also require employers to show that pay disparities between their male and female employees are related to job performance, not gender.)  But the Republicans, to a man -- and woman -- were against it.

At the same time, former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" that he thinks same-sex marriage discourages marriage between a man and a woman.

"Would we be discouraging heterosexual marriage by allowing gay marriage?" Bill O'Reilly asked Santorum.

"Yeah, I believe we would," Santorum replied.

Santorum then suggested that legalizing gay marriage results in Americans having fewer children.

“Because we'd be saying that marriage isn't about children," Santorum said. "And when we say that, then, of course, the consequences are you're probably going to have less children. It's happening as we see it. It's already happening in America."

Are these the same Republicans who want to convince women and members of the LGBT community that they are in their corner, fighting the good fight along with them?  Are they so blinded by ideology and fearful of drawing a primary opponent as to be incapable of seeing the great disconnect? 

Apparently not.

Interviews with people attending the Hollywood conference revealed broad disagreement about exactly what changes are needed if they are to reverse the party's losing streak in national races. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said his job was not to dictate policy but to create a granular, coast-to-coast operation — particularly in Latino and Asian American neighborhoods — to stem the party's steep losses.

Asked by a Los Angeles Times reporter what the party planned to say to those voters, Priebus said the next Republican presidential candidate would drive the policy discussion.  "I'm not talking about changing the principle of our party, but I am trying to communicate that principle draped in grace and respect," Priebus said. "Generally we've done that. However, I know we've also had a few biologically stupid comments that were made in 2012 that helped, unfortunately, build a narrative and caricature that wasn't true. . . . It's not about what you say; it's how you said it."

No Mr. Priebus.  It's not even about what you say . . . it's about what you do.

To be sincere or merely fake it: that is the question.

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

Publico Damnari!

 

Audio Link to "Publico Damnari!"

 

According to nearly a dozen reputable national polls conducted over the past month, an overwhelming majority of the American public favors stricter, tighter gun laws.  In its review of nine recent polls -- including those run by Gallup, Pew Research, CNN/Time, CBS/New York Times and Fox News (!) -- Constitution Daily found an average of 88% of the public favoring universal background checks. Moreover by an average of 57%, people favored a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips, while 56% of those polled approved of a ban on assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons. In other findings:

• About 50% of the people questioned by the three most conservative polling organizations, were concerned that gun-control legislation would take weapons away from them, or believed protection from gun violence was a lesser concern than protecting their Second Amendment rights.
• In addition to background checks, another idea that has widespread support is devoting more funds and attention to mental health issues. An average of 83% of people surveyed in four polls favored increased attention to mental health programs.
• Of the 12 ideas that appeared across the grouping of all nine polls, the least popular was arming teachers and school officials with guns. It only had a support rate of 41%.

Despite these findings, Congress -- which in a recent Think Progress poll was found to be held in far lower esteem than Genghis Kahn, used car salesmen, lice and the band Nickleback (formally known as "The Village Idiots") -- Congress has yet to do much more than
cower before Wayne LaPierre and the National Rifle Association. (This just in: on today's "Meet the Press," LaPierre declared that background checks were based on "a dishonest premise," and said that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg -- an advocate of stricter gun control who has given millions of dollars toward tighter regulation through Mayors Against Illegal Guns -- has an "insane" approach to gun control. Bloomberg supports universal background checks, as well as a ban on assault weapons and an upgraded gun-tracking system -- all measures the NRA opposes.) 

Despite LaPierre's rhetoric and his group's deep pockets, the NRA is increasingly being shown for what it truly it is: a blustering band of paper tigers whose roar is far more chimeric than concrete.  Need proof?  In the 2012 election, the NRA spent more than $18 million, making contributions to 140 incumbents (111 Republicans and 29 Democrats); 95% of those dollars were spent on races in which their preferred candidate lost -- this according to data compiled by the Sunlight Foundation. Moreover the NRA spent more than $100,000 in seven Senate races in 2012. On Election Day, their preferred candidate lost in six of those races, often by healthy margins. In three of those states (Florida, Missouri and Maine, their candidates lost by more than 10 points.  Similarly, of the 26 members of the House of Representatives who lost on Election Day, 18 were endorsed by the NRA.

Despite the NRA's dismal track record, nearly every Congressional Republican -- and a sizeable number of Democrats as well -- are loathe to support any gun control measure with teeth, such as reinstating the assault weapons ban, severely limiting the number of rounds in a magazine or taxing the daylights out of bullets. (Do check out this fascinating interactive website to see where your senators and representative stand on gun control and what "grade" they have received from the NRA) 

While it is undoubtedly true that no new law or set of laws will ever put an end to gun violence in America, to do nothing -- or next to nothing -- is not only irresponsible; it is a frontal assault on the will of the people.   Publica locutus est -- the public has spoken.  We want Congress to enact significant gun reform legislation.  And what is their response? Publico damnari! -- "The public be damned!" This attitude, of course, extends well beyond the issue of what Congress is going to do -- or not do -- about guns and ammo.  The detached arrogance of publico damnari! -- again, meaning "The public be damned" -- is both overwhelming and omnipresent.  It is largely nourished by truckloads of cash provided by corporations and a handful of mostly right-wing billionaires who owe everything to Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia (RATS) and Kennedy for their decision in the Citizen's United case.  It will be recalled in this decision -- which, back in October 2010 I wrote was "Worse Than Dred Scott," the court declared that corporations had the same constitutional rights as people, and that individuals could contribute unlimited sums of money just so long as it wasn't to a specific candidate.  At the time, I noted that, ". . . in giving corporations and anonymous 'civic-minded' mega-billionaires the legal right to deluge the political system with dollars, they have hastened the transition of America from a capitalist to a corporatist state." In that essay, I also wondered aloud if, "there is any power on earth that might one day lead to the nullification of Citizens United?" The answer to that question is "perhaps."

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and Florida Representative Ted Deutch have introduced a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.  To date, 11 states and more than 300 cities and towns have passed resolutions calling for the ruling to be overturned. In announcing his proposed constitutional amendment, Senator Sanders noted:

What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to tell billionaires like the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelson, 'You own and control Wall Street. You own and control coal companies. You own and control oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we're going to give you the opportunity to own and control the United States government.’ That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about. That is why this disastrous decision must be reversed."

Indeed.

If passed by Congress and then ratified by three-quarters of the states (a big "IF"), the Sanders/Deutch proposal, "The Democracy is For People Amendment," would, as Senator Sanders explains, " . . . effectively prevent corporations from bankrolling election campaigns. Congress and states would have specific authority to regulate campaign finances by, for example, limiting donations, requiring disclosure of donors or creating public-financing systems for campaigns."  Much of the publico damnari! attitude is made possible by the fear that unless one toes the line -- as set by the richest of the rich and the craziest of the crazy -- they will be voted out of office.  This attitude undergirds far more than the current gun debate; it is the launching pad for most of the critical issues facing Congress -- from immigration and taxes to global warming, healthcare and the deficit.  I for one believe that The Democracy is For People Amendment, Quixotic though it may be, is terribly important.  For unless and until we can drive big, big, big money out of the political system, publico damnari! will continue being the politician's favorite cheer. 

For anyone interested in The Democracy is For People Amendment, please visit the Public Citizen website.  Together, we can change publico damnari! -- "The public be damned" -- to super omnia volutatem populi -- "Above all, the will of the people . . ."

ולכל הקוראים היהודים שלי את מיטב איחולים לפסח כשר ושמח

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

Sequestration: Abdication, Desecration, Indignation and a Whole Lot More

Audio Link to Sequestration -- Abdication, Desecration, Indignation and a Whole Lot More

Up until recently, about the only people who could define the words "sequester" or "sequestration" were chemists, Shakespearean nerds and fans of "Perry Mason" or "Law and Order."  In science, "sequestration" is defined as "The action of forming a chelate," which is a compound having a metal bond that can act somewhat like a magnet. In Shakespeare's King  Henry VI, Part I, the imprisoned Edmund Mortimer (the Earl of March), upon learning from his gaoler  that his nephew, Richard Plantagenet, is going to visit him in the Tower of London, bemoans "This loathsome sequestration I have had," meaning his term in the hoosegow.  Any "Perry Mason" or "Law and Order" maven knows that juries are frequently "sequestered" -- kept separate and secluded.  Juries aside, in law, "sequestration" is "The act of seizing property that belongs to someone else and holding it until profits pay the demand for which it was seized."

 

Of course, over the past several months, the word "sequestration" -- now carrying a new, specific meaning -- has not only loomed large in our nation's political, economic and civil (and not-so-civil) debate; it has become capitalized . . . "Sequestration." In this, its new, linguistically specific incarnation, "Sequestration" has yet to make it into either the New York Times Sunday Crossword or Sue Gleason's Double Crostic Puzzle Page.  And although most readers of this blog have a good general sense for the meaning of capital-S "Sequestration," defining it with any degree of precision is not all that easy.

 

In doing research for this essay, I discovered that there are  there are more than 365 four-letter words which rhyme with sequestration.  More than a dozen of them underscore the horrific ugliness and asininity of what this country is about to undergo.  For when all is said and done, the Budget Control Act of 2011 (that which mandated the $85 billion in random spending cuts which will be phased in over the next four-plus weeks): 

• Represents an abdication  of congressional responsibility.
• Is the consummation of the Tea Party/GOP's plan to eviscerate the Federal Government -- to, in the words of Grover Norquist, "drown it in the bathtub."
• Is a declaration of war against the will of the American people, the majority of whom -- including registered Republicans -- think Sequestration is suicidal.
• Is a fabrication which claims that all of America's economic difficulties are due to deficits, and as such, spending cuts are the only solution.
•  Shows what harm an infestation of amateur ideologues can do to an institution, a government,  and an economy in less than two years.
• Says that living up to America's historic and moral obligations amounts to less than a farthing.
• Sets in motion the further strangulation of the American middle class.

Additional rhyming words which come to mind include abrogation, condemnation, depredation, exploitation, fumigation, irritation, laceration, mutilation, orchestration, revocation, suffocation, termination and violation -- all of which play a role in defining this new, mindless impasse -- an impasse we never would have reached if our politicians acted more like practiced professionals and less like the childish cowards they've proven themselves to be.  The Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi put it succinctly in his most recent piece: " . . . what we're watching is irresponsibility on an epic scale, wherein both of our major political parties seem to prefer government by random outcome over one managed by sensible compromise."

How in the world did we ever reach this sorry dead end? 

When dozens of Tea Partiers got  elected to Congress in 2010, they brought with them an apocalyptic vision of an eviscerated federal government; one that would be incapable of lending assistance to the sick, the elderly or the unemployed.  In short, they saw a clock running backwards towards a time prior to FDR's New Deal.  The first step in achieving their ultimate goal involved holding the full faith and credit of the United States hostage . . . remember the Debt Ceiling Crisis of 2011?  In order to avoid defaulting on the public debt, the White House and House Republicans agreed to harsh and arbitrary “sequestered” spending cuts if they couldn’t come up with a more reasonable deal in the interim. "But," in the words of Clinton-era Labor Secretary Robert Reich, "the Tea Partiers had no intention of agreeing to anything more reasonable. They knew the only way to dismember the federal government was through large spending cuts without tax increases." To be certain, this short-term strategy leads to increased unemployment and economic stagnation, without doing anything to lower the nation's deficit in the long-term.  This can only lead to an American public that is angry, fearful and full of resentment. 

And this is precisely what the Republican Party's most conservative ideologues are after: anger, fear and resentment against (they hope) the Democrats. Their hope is that the more angry, bitter and fearful the American public becomes, the more they will turn to . . . guess who? . . . The smaller-is-better conservatives of the Tea Party wing of the GOP. True to their playbook, Republicans blame every aspect of the nation's economic woes on a spendthrift president who gladly pays off the poor, the elderly and the unemployed in order to gladly drive up long-term debt while simultaneously receiving the continued support and adulation of the "entitlement crowd."

Although most polling shows that a majority of the American public don't buy into the Tea Party worldview, Tea Partiers like Eric Cantor (VA), Tim Huelskamp (Kan), Steve King (IA) and Rand Paul (KY) don't really care . . . nor do they have to.  So long as they can keep their local base happy -- by holding fast to their pledge of "No taxes, no compromise, no engaging the enemy . . . ever!" they know they will likely run unopposed in their next primary and be reelected come November. 

Most regrettably, President Obama's response to Sequestration involves neither evocation nor exhortation: it is, once again, searching for the illusive, idealistic "grand bargain" of “balanced” spending cuts (including cuts in the projected growth of Social Security and Medicare) combined with tax increases on the wealthy.  As of today, the president has agreed to a gross imbalance -- $1.5 trillion in cuts to Republicans’ $600 billion in tax increases on the rich.  Such an approach gives me feelings of indignation, irritation and perturbation.  Try as he may, the president is never going to get the Tea Party crowd -- which controls one-half of one-third of the Federal Government -- to agree to a dime in new revenue.  To them, compromise on anything spells both defeat at the polls and a one-way ticket to Hell.  Better that the president get back to discussing jobs, jobs, jobs and convincing the public that with jobs comes increased purchasing power; with increased purchasing power comes economic growth; with economic growth comes increased revenue; with increased revenue comes a better position from which to seriously tackle our long-term economic challenges. 

It seems to me that the medication of increased employment and economic growth beats the domination of the Tea Party seven days a week . . . and twice on Sunday. 

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

One Man's Elitist is Another Man's Rube

Audio Link to One Man's Elitist is Another Man's Rube

Those who read -- or listened to -- last week's essay, Riddle Me a Riddle, might recall a brief reference to Texas Senator Ted Cruz, whom John McCain took to the verbal woodshed after the upper chamber's junior-most member wondered aloud if perhaps former Senator Chuck Hagel -- Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense -- had received cash considerations from Iran and North Korea.  Elsewhere in the essay, there was a reference to an unsubstantiated blurb in the online "Breitbart News" which pondered whether Hagel had received funding from a (nonexistent) group called "Friends of Hamas."  Readers will recall that we characterized both of these off-the-wall assertions as coming straight out of the "Joseph McCarthy playbook." In the week since this essay was posted, both threads in the Hagel controversy -- the one emanating from the lips of Ted Cruz, the other from the keyboards of Breitbart News -- have become major news stories for media outlets on both the left and the right. 

When Ben Shapiro, editor-in-chief of Breitbart News was asked whether he stood by his claim (which originated in a sarcastic, off-handed comment by the New York Daily News' Dan Friedman) that Hagel "may have received the financial backing of 'Friends of Hamas,'" Shapiro responded, "The story as reported is correct. Whether the information I was given by the source is correct I am not sure.” This bit of elliptical reasoning comes perilously close to the logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc -- namely, "Since 'A' occurred prior to 'B,' if nothing else, blame 'B' on 'A.'  Essentially, what the right-wing is demanding is that Hagel prove that a scurrilous rumor -- which has been shown to be nothing more than a childish canard - isn't true.  Hmmm.  It's tantamount to answering the question "Have you stopped beating your spouse?"  No matter how you answer, you lose . . . 

Then there is the matter of Senator Cruz, whose understanding of innuendo is second-to-none: 

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Turns out, when we characterized the above nonsense as being right out of the McCarthy playbook, we were actually hitting a nail more squarely on the head than we realized.  According to a blog post by award-winning New Yorker writer Jane Mayer, Cruz, speaking in  2011 at a Fourth of July gathering of the Koch-funded "Americans for Prosperity"  accused the Harvard Law School of harboring a dozen Communists on its faculty  when he studied there back in the early 1990s.  In this speech, Cruz -- who regardless of what one thinks of his politics is a fabulous orator -- began by describing Barack Obama as "the most radical president ever to occupy the Oval Office."  He then went on to say that Obama "would have made a perfect president of Harvard Law School.” The reason, said  Cruz, was that, “There were fewer declared Republicans in the faculty when we  were there than Communists! There was one Republican. But there were twelve who  would say they were Marxists who believed in the Communists overthrowing the  United States government.” When asked to respond to this outrageous charge,  Cruz's spokesperson actually said his boss was right; that Harvard Law School was "full of Communists when he was a student there."

Cruz's rationale for this McCarthyistic charge is that during the early 1990s, Harvard Law School did have many left-leaning professors who supported what they called "Critical Legal Studies," a method of critiquing the political impact of the  American legal system.  Admittedly, the Critical Legal Studies Movement was undergirded by a more than a hint of Marxist ideology -- but then too so is the Israeli Kibbutz movement.  When queried about Cruz's accusation, Harvard Law School Professor Charles Fried, a Republican who served as Ronald  Reagan’s Solicitor General from 1985 to 1989, and who subsequently taught Cruz  at the law school, suggested that his former student had his facts wrong.“I can  right offhand count four “out” Republicans (including myself) and I don’t know  how many closeted Republicans when Ted, who was my student and the editor on the  Harvard Law Review who helped me with my Supreme Court foreword, was a student  here.”

According to Jane Mayer, who was in attendance at Cruz's Fourth of July speech back in 2011, he had the crowd up on their feet, applauding, cheering and in obvious agreement with his assessment of the number of Marxists teaching at Harvard Law.  For those of us who do not attend Koch-funded gatherings or Tea Party rallies, it comes as a bit of shock to learn that there are so many heirs to Joseph McCarthy out there.  Senator Ted Cruz is certainly not alone.  Consider folks like Senator Rand Paul, Representative Michelle Bachmann, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin and former Representative Allen West; all have made use of the "I have in my hand a list . . ." strategy to score political points and scare the pants off their innocent, largely gullible admirers.   And indeed, there are millions of Americans who believe that McCarthy -- like Cruz, Palin and West -- was right; that indeed, there is "a large cadre of Marxists" (including, they believe, Barack Obama) working day and night to overthrow the government of the United States.  According to these true believers, the enemy is largely made up of elitists; effete, privileged, latte-sipping products of effete Ivy League Schools. 

But wait; isn't conservative Tea Party darling Ted Cruz a graduate of Princeton ('92) and Harvard Law ('95)?  What about other conservatives like:

• George W. Bush (A.B Yale '68, MBA Harvard, '75),
• Bobby Jindal (B.A. Brown, '91, M. Lit. Oxford, 1994),
• David Vitter (B.A Harvard '5\83, B.A. Oxford, '85) and
• Pat Toomey (B.A Harvard, '84)? 

Why do fellow conservatives consider them to be "just one of the guys," when people like:

• Barack Obama (B.A. Columbia, '83; J.D., Harvard, '91),
• Charles Schumer (B.A. Harvard '71, J.D. '74), 
• Alan Grayson (B.A. Harvard,  '78, J.D. '83, M.A. '83) and
• Michelle Obama, (B.A. Princeton, 1985, J.D. Harvard, 1988) 

are considered by the rubes of the right to be snotty elitists? It just doesn't make sense. Tea Party folks love to pillory progressives with elite educations for having been born with silver spoons in their mouths and golden slippers on their feet.  Truth to tell, Barack Obama's mother spent time receiving welfare; Chuck Schumer's father was an exterminator (bugs, that is); Michelle Obama's dad was a city water plant employee in Chicago, and Alan Grayson worked his way through Harvard cleaning toilets and working as a night watchman.  Elitists? I think not. 

It is reminiscent of early Hollywood where, they use to say, that the only difference between a millionaire movie star -- who was treated like a member of the aristocracy -- and his manservant, was that the latter was literate. 

Yes indeed, the way things are in modern civil society, one man's elitist is another man's rube.  

The only question is, which is which?

 

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

Riddle Me a Riddle

 

Audio Link to Riddle Me a Riddle



Riddle me a riddle:

When is a filibuster not a filibuster?

For the answer, keep on reading . . .

Filibuster: a highly-charged three-syllable word that inevitably conjures up an image of a sweaty James Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington if you're a movie lover or a memory of Strom Thurmond, Al D'Amato, Wayne Morse or William Proxmire if you're a political geek.  Once upon a time, a filibuster was as rare as a Chicago Cubs world championship.  And according to "the rules," the bloviating senator (filibusters cannot take place in the House) had to remain on his feet, speaking continuously on any subject of his choice, without benefit of food, drink or time-out for a mad dash to the men's room.  Back in the day, filibusters were so extraordinarily rare that the mere hint of one sent a shock-wave through the Halls of Congress; everyone, from the lowliest page to the senior-most committee chair dropped in so as to become an eyewitness to history. Back in the day, one  would not engage in a filibuster as a matter of partisan caprice; frequently  one held the floor because they truly believed a core constitutional matter was at stake.  Back in August of 1956, South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond held the floor for a record 24 hours, 18 minutes, filibustering against the Civil Rights Act.  (It was eventually enacted, despite a "tag-team" filibuster in which a group of Southern Democrats held the floor between March 26 and June 19, the day the bill final passed.)

Then too, senators  have been known to filibuster for, shall we say, slightly less than principled reasons.  Back in 1986 New York Senator Aphonse D'Amato held the floor for 23 hours and 30 minutes to stall debate on an important military bill.  He was reportedly incensed  about an amendment that would have cut off funding for a jet training plane built by a company headquartered in his state. 

Between 1919 and 1970 there were never more than 7 filibusters in any two-year congressional session.  By 1987-88, the number of filibusters had exploded to 54; in 1995-96 there were 82. Since Barack Obama became president, the number of filibusters has averaged more than 140 per session. (Click on graph below to get a larger view):

There are only two ways to bring a filibuster to an end: either the senator (or team) voluntarily ends the  verbal harangue, or the body passes a motion of cloture.  This latter technique was first adopted back in 1917 at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson, and it was first use two years later when the Senate invoked it in order to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles.  Between 1919 and 1975, a successful cloture motion required two-thirds of the Senate.  Today, it requires three-fifths, or, in cases where all 100 senators are present and voting, 60 votes.  Today, it takes but one senator placing a "hold" on a bill, an amendment or a presidential nomination, to effectively begin a filibuster. And, unlike in the days of Jimmy Stewart and Strom Thurmond, the filibustering solon, far from having to remain standing and speaking, isn't even required to be in the same time zone.

Which brings us back to our original riddle, namely: "When is a filibuster not a filibuster?

Whenever Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham say it ain't . . . as in the case of President Obama's nominee for Secretary of Defense, former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel.  As readers of this blog know, not a single Republican member of the Senate Armed Services Committee voted in favor of Hagel's nomination.  Publicly, Senators Graham, McCain and many of their colleagues told Fox News that the reason for the committee vote -- and "non-filibuster filibuster" on the Senate floor was due to two reasons:

1. A need to know more about Hagel's financial dealings. (Senate Republicans are demanding five years' worth of Hagel's records where for everyone else -- including former Senator John Kerry) it is merely two, and
2. A need to know more about the September 11 massacre in Benghazi, Libya, where U.S. Ambassador Chris Smith and several other American diplomats were murdered by terrorists. (Never mind that Hagel was a private citizen at the time of the murders and that as members of Armed Services they are privy to more classified knowledge than the former Nebraska Senator.) 

Of course, this double-barreled rationale is sheer twaddle.  Their opposition to Hagel -- and that "non-filibuster filibuster" against him are based on a couple of other purely partisan reasons:

First, that as a senator, Chuck Hagel -- a man who then-candidate John McCain said he would be "proud to have" as his Secretary of State -- was a strident voice against the war in Iraq.  On more than one occasion, Hagel accused then President George W. and his Bush Administration of telling lies about the existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) to get us into Iraq.   Moreover, Hagel, a much-decorated Vietnam enlistee, (like Secretary of State John Kerry who himself is a much-decorated Vietnam enlistee) is far less bellicose, far more cautious about going to war, then virtually all of his former Republican colleagues -- which they view as a mortal sin.  And if this were not enough, Hagel had the temerity to campaign in 2010 for a Democratic Senate candidate (former Admiral Joe Sestak) in Pennsylvania and to support former Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey -- a Democrat -- against the eventual winner, Republican Deb Fisher.  I certainly recognize that there are people who oppose the Hegal nomination for other reasons -- such as past statements he has made about Israel, Iran and gays.  And there are certainly people around the country who firmly believe that he is anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-gay.  And yet, Hagel has received the endorsement of virtually every Jewish Democrat on Capitol Hill.

McCain, who from all appearances seems to be losing it, is trying to have it both ways.  On the one hand, he told Fox News that Hagel was "anti his own party and people. People don't forget that. You can disagree, but if you're disagreeable, people don't forget that." And yet, when Texas Senator Ted Cruz (whose senate tenure can be measured in the tens of hours) took a page out of the Joseph McCarthy playbook and accused Hagel of being chummy with both Iran and North Korea, McCain came to the Nebraskan's defense -- "No one should impugn the character of Senator Hagel . . ." 

Second, Senate Republican's "non-filibuster filibuster" against the Hagel nomination is just one more way they have of showing their ultimate disdain for all things Barack Obama.  Indeed, blocking the president's Defense nominee -- especially at a time when America is still engaged in a war and is facing global challenges in Iraq, Syria and North Africa -- shows as much willful partisan disdain as putting the nation's economy in peril for the sake of mollifying the anti-tax-cut-spending-shrink-government crowd on their right.  It is yet another case of politics over patriotism, plain and simple. 

(It should be noted that last week, the right-wing Breitbart News ran a specious three-paragraph report which breathlessly claimed that "Sources told Breitbart News exclusively that they have been informed that one of the reasons that President Barack Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel, has not turned over requested documents on his sources of foreign funding is that one of the names listed is a group purportedly called “Friends of Hamas.” It should be duly noted that despite exhaustive inquiries by many intrepid researchers, nobody has been able to find a group called "Friends of Hamas."  Indeed, these guys will do and say anything to torpedo Hagel.)

If ever there was a time to amend the Senate rules and once more make filibusters a rare exception rather than the rule that time would be now.  Senators Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tom Udall (D-NM) have proposed going back to the so-called "Talking Filibuster" -- the kind that Strom Thurmond and Jimmy Stewart participated in.  Unfortunately, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said as recently as three weeks ago, “I’m not personally, at this stage, ready to get rid of the 60-vote threshold. With the history of the Senate, we have to understand the Senate isn’t and shouldn’t be like the House.” What's in the back of Harry Reid's mind is the thought that should the day come when Democrats become the Senate minority, they -- like the Republicans today -- will need that 60-vote supermajority to keep objectionable legislation -- or nominations -- from becoming reality. 

That could be, although no one knows for sure.  What is certain is that the nation faces crucial challenges which must be addressed, must be dealt with TODAY, not tomorrow or next year.  In many areas of political endeavor that which is enacted today may not pay dividends until next year or the year after or indeed, the decade after that.  Universal preschool education and increased spending on technology are  two prime examples.  In the case of revamping the manner in which the Senate does business, to hell with the future; our need is now.  If we are to face our challenges head-on, the 60-vote super majority must go.  The "talking filibuster" must be restored. 

Contact your senators.  Tell them they must support the Merkley/Udall bill. 

And that's no riddle.

©2013 Kurt F. Stone

 

You Schmooze, You Lose

Audio Link to You Schmooze You Lose

Dear President Obama:

   As I write this, you are no doubt putting some last-minute, finishing touches on your second inaugural address. I for one cannot wait to hear it, and hope that it will be both inspiring and transcendent. Even your most demonic detractors have to admit that you are endowed with a felicity of expression, the likes of which few presidents have

Michel de Montaigne

ever possessed.  For your millions upon millions of supporters, this ability to inspire and uplift is, without question, a lustrous gift.  Of course, there are additional millions who denigrate your eloquence; who find in your phrases traces of treachery and elitism.  Don't take it too personally Mr. President; as the great French essayist and skeptic Michel de Montaigne noted long ago, Peu d’hommes ont esté admirés par leurs domestiques, namely, "No man is a hero to his valet."

   Yes indeed, Mr. President, I am  looking forward to your inaugural address, and know you won't let us down.  At the same time, there are a few things I hope not to hear you say.  Chief among these are the expressions "Reaching across the aisle," "In the spirit of cooperation and bipartisanship," and anything including the words "The higher angels of our being."  For you see, Mr. President, it is my deep and sincere hope that you learned a lesson during your first term; that no amount of wining, dining, schmoozing or boozing will ever get the opposition to support -- even via compromise -- any program or proposal you put on the table.     

   During your first term, you spent a lot of time seeking out Republicans you thought might be reasonable.  And then, you made compromises in the hopes that mollified, these "reasonable" folks would then go back and convince other members of their caucus to join you in doing that which was right for America.  But time and again, the only message they brought back from their caucus was "No bipartisanship, no compromise, no nothing . . . it's our way or the highway."  How many times can you hear "Do what we want or we'll shut down the government, blow up the economy, and dump tons and tons of coal into middle-class stockings" before it begins to sink in that these guys aren't ever going to become political partners?

   Inviting Speaker Boehner to play another round of golf with you just isn't going to cut it.  I'm not sure he would even accept an invitation; in the eyes of those on his right flank. hitting the green with you would be an act of duplicity . . . consorting with the enemy. Heck, to the best of my knowledge, not a single new GOP member of Congress accepted your invitation to come on over to the White House for punch and cookies.  And that's a tradition as old as Adams and Jefferson.  And recently, when you held a private screening of Lincoln -- attended by Steven Spielberg, and stars Daniel-Day Lewis, Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones -- Boehner, Minor Leader McConnell and Senators Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Tom Coburn (R-OK) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) turned down invitations.  Hells bells: if you can't get them to come out for Spielberg and free popcorn, what chance is there of reaching a consensus on Global Warming, Immigration Reform or the next Secretary of Defense?

   The only thing that motivates Republicans these days is fear; fear that if they don't toe the most conservative line imaginable, they will be challenged in the next primary by someone who is even further to the right.  This excruciatingly obtuse situation should, Mr. President, give you the beginnings of a strategy for your second term.  If handled properly, you can hasten the complete and  utter marginalization of the GOP.  How?  By increasing the political cost of having the GOP coalition -- shaky though it may be -- defined by Second Amendment absolutists, climate science deniers, supporters of "self-deportation" and the pure no-tax wing.

  Little by little, you are beginning to see the strategy at work.  Already, members of the GOP including Governors Chris Christie (NJ) and Bobby Jindal (LA) are upbraiding fellow Republicans for putting hard-core deficit reduction ahead of heartfelt disaster relief, and Senators Rubio (FL) and Cruz (TX) ridiculing the "self-deportation" wing of their party.  Its a start, Mr. President; one that you should just stand back and enjoy.  You don't have to lift a finger; the GOP is imploding of its own accord. Just proceed with a second-term agenda which includes addressing global warming and immigration, sensible gun control and the retrofitting of the nation's infrastructure, education and the cleaning up the nation's economic woes.

   I like your official second-term photo; it displays a bit of attitude I believe was missing in your first term.  For here,  you are smiling, but with your arms crossed.  Could it be symbolic of the way the next four years are going to be? That you mean business? That you're going to be a more resolute, more forceful Barack Obama?  I for one certainly hope so.  Please Mr. President, don't waste any of the next four years trying to schmooze the opposition.  You schmooze, you lose.  Time and again the GOP ("Guns Over People" as one pundit has taken to calling them) have shown themselves to care more about reelection than repairing that which ails us.  There is no need for you to divide them so that they may be conquered; they have, after all,  divided themselves.  As the greatest of your predecessors once said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."  

   Best wishes for a successful second term.  We're in your corner, just as you, are in ours.

   Be good to yourself,  

   Kurt F. Stone  

  ©2013 Kurt F. Stone

What's in a Name?

 

Audio Link to What's in a Name

Question: What do French diplomat Jean Nicot (1530-1600), the French Controller General Etienne Silhouette (1709-1767) German Astronomer Franz Mesmer (1734-1815), French physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (1738-1814), British editor Thomas Bowdler (1754-1825) and Austrian novelist Leopold Von Sacher-Masoch (1836-1895) all have in common?

Answer: Their names have all been immortalized as either nouns (nicotine, silhouette and sado-masochist) or verbs (to mesmerize, to guillotine and to bowdlerize).  

English abounds in this sort of thing.  Think of all the eponymous verbs we use on a daily basis: To "sue," "mark," "pat," "jack," "rob," "hope," "pierce," "don," "grace" and "chuck" are but a few.  Then, there are all the brand names which have either taken on generic lives of their own -- Kleenex, Saran Wrap, Xerox (also used as a verb), Jacuzzi, Chapstick and Vaseline, to name but a few -- or have become generic verbs -- such as "to Photoshop" or "to Google." 

In the political realm there is the verb "to gerrymander," defined as "Manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency so as to favor one party or class."  Etymologically, the term comes from Elbridge Gerry (1744-1814), the 5th Vice President of the United States and salamander.  Goodness knows there are millions who use the term without knowing who Gerry (pronounced with a hard "g") was.  Likewise, how many people know what it means "to Mirandize" a suspect without having the slightest idea who Ernesto Arturo Miranda actually was, or what Miranda v Arizona was all about?

And then there is "Borking," a term named after the recently deceased judge and legal scholar Robert Bork.  "To Bork" (a verb used with an object) means "Trying to block candidates for public office by systematically defaming or vilifying them.” The term
goes back to 1985, the year that President Ronald Reagan nominated Bork to the high court.  Many will recall that in nationally televised hearings, the Senate Judiciary Committee delved into Bork's judicial ideology, not just his legal qualifications or competence.  His past commentary on hot-button issues such as the Civil Rights Act ("While the ugliness of racism is clear, having the state coerce you into more righteous paths is a principal of unsurpassed ugliness. . ."), and the court's 1965 decision  establishing a constitution right to privacy, caused committee Democrats  - and Republican Senator Arlen Spector, to oppose his nomination with a heretofore unseen level of ferocity.  Led by then-Senator Joe Biden and the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Bork would be turned down by a roll call vote of 58-42 -- the most votes ever against a Supreme Court nominee.  Looking backward, the "Borking of Robert Bork" was a pyrrhic victory for which both the Democrats in specific and the American public in general have been paying reparations for more than a quarter century.

Prior to Robert Bork, Supreme Court nominees -- along with virtually anyone else a president might name -- were ratified by the Senate with both dispatch and dignity.  Ever since Robert Bork, presidential nominees -- and increasingly, not just for the bench -- have been subjected to intense scrutiny both in committee and before the cameras.  Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, tens of dozens of presidential nominees have never even received a hearing; their positions have gone unoccupied.  In 2012, "Borking" is far more than a verbal term; it is a vile technique; a technique whereby the wheels of government can be ground to a virtual halt in the name of ideological purity.

Whether practiced by Democrats or Republicans, Borking is both puerile and counter-productive; it has turned United States Senate -- once called "The world's greatest deliberative body" -- into a sandbox.  Until recently, senators gave sitting presidents tremendous leeway when it came to naming people to the Cabinet or federal bench.  Indeed, in all American history, only 21 nominees have been defeated or withdrawn.  That number will likely double within the next four years.

And if it does, it won't just be because of "Borking," for indeed, as of a few days ago, there is a newer, even more pernicious political gerund making its way to the front of the line: "Ricing" . . . as in U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice.  What makes the latter far worse than the former is that that one need not even have received an official nomination for the process of "Ricing" -- of defamation and vilification -- to commence.  Remember, Senate Republicans began questioning whether Dr. Rice was qualified to become Secretary of State when she was nothing more than the purported front-runner -- not the nominee.  Slashing attacks on her suitability, her temperament, and her political judgment quickly became page-one headlines; so much so that she removed her name from consideration.

Who knows, maybe Ambassador Rice wouldn't have turned out to be the greatest Secretary of State since Thomas Jefferson or William Seward.  The fact that she was forced to withdraw her name from consideration means we will never know, and is yet another indication of just how partisan and spiteful the art of governance has become.  Believe it or not, no Secretary of State nominee has ever been defeated . . . and we've had some real doozies reigning at Foggy Bottom.  Senator John Kerry, who just became the president's official nominee for State, will likely avoid most of the traps and pitfalls set for Ambassador Rice and be confirmed.  It certainly helps that he has been a senator for more than a quarter-century, is well-known to those who will pass judgment on him, and has specialized in foreign policy. 

But "Ricing" continues.  Former Nebraska Senator -- and Vietnam War hero -- Chuck Hagel is being touted as the next Secretary of Defense.  He too is is getting "Riced" over statements he made in years past about what he called "The Jewish lobby," and the perception in some quarters that he is not sufficiently hawkish when it comes to Iran or Hamas.  (This may well be true, but it is always good to keep in mind that the Secretary of Defense does not set U.S. military policy; his -- or her -- responsibility is to carry out policy as set by the President of the United States.  And yet, the name, record and reputation of this non-nominee are also being Riced.)

Make no mistake about it: "Ricing," like "Borking" has as much -- if not more -- to do with partisan politics than with what's truly best for America.  It is yet one more indication of how much we have come to treat governance and leadership like some fantasy league blood sport.  

To paraphrase Juliet, "What's in a name? That which we call 'Ricing' by any other name would smell of defeat . . . "    

©2012 Kurt F. Stone

 

Exit Stage Right

 

Audio Link to Exit Stage Right

 

Last week's essay, A Time to Run and a Time to Stand, argued that one of the most nettlesome and systemic problems facing America is that our politicians are far more consumed with running for office than governing the nation. Proof of this political devolution abounds; from all the posturing on the "Fiscal Cliff" situation and the Michigan Legislature's move to enact "Right-to-Work" legislation, to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's breaking historic ground by actually filibustering his own bill. 

   Is it any wonder that so many pundits and political observers aver that the 2012 election changed nothing -- that we are in store for "more of the same?"

   I for one strongly disagree. 

   In doing a "post-game wrap-up" of the 2012 election, it seems clear -- at least to me -- that changes are visibly occurring, and most notably on the political right:

• Tea Party favorites Allen West (FL), Joe Walsh (IL), Frank Guinta (NH) Bobby Shilling (IL) and Todd Aiken (MO) are all out looking for new jobs.
• House Speaker John Boehner removed Tea Party favorites David Schweikert (R-AZ), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), Walter Jones (NC) and Justin Amash (R-MI) from their plum committee assignments (Schweikert and Jones from Financial Services, Huelskamp and Amash from Budget).
  
• The future of FreedomWorks -- one of the largest and most influential Tea Party groups in the country, is uncertain now that its leader, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey has angrily departed his post.
•  Fox News programming chief Bill Shine has "benched" conservative gasbags Carl Rove and Dick Morris. From now on Fox producers will first have to ask for approval before either can appear on camera.
• South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint, founder of the Senate Conservatives Fund and easily one of the upper chambers most right-wing -- and apparently least liked -- members, announced that he was resigning his seat in order to take over as president of the Heritage Foundation.  (As an aside, just yesterday, DeMint's new employer claimed that once fully implemented, Obamacare will cause medical bills for our pets to go through the ceiling!)

Despite a plethora of public well-wishes and "atta-boys" from his about to become former senate colleagues, DeMint's departure is hardly being mourned on the Hill.  ("He's the biggest douchebag in Washington," is how one congressional aide explained it to the Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi, "and this is the douchebag capital of the world.") Never what one would term an "active legislator," DeMint spent the lion's share of his time on Capitol Hill trying to elect like-minded hard-right Republicans to the upper chamber. His "batting average" was less than .300.  Many of his colleagues hold him responsible for costing them control of the senate; over the past two election cycles DeMint threw his support and campaign dollars behind such extreme candidates as Delaware's Christine "I dabbled in witchcraft" O'Donnell, Nevada's Sharon "The 9/11 Hijackers came in through Canada" Angle, Missouri's Todd "Legitimate rape victims rarely get pregnant" Aiken and Indiana's Richard "A pregnancy stemming from rape is God's will" Mourdock. DeMint himself has evinced some pretty unique beliefs such as "An unmarried woman who is having sex with her boyfriend shouldn't be in the classroom," and "The bigger government gets, the smaller God gets."  Despite his many extreme positions and even more extreme statements, DeMint occupied one of the safest seats in the United States Senate, which says a lot about South Carolina.  Seems to me that the while the Palmetto State is probably too small to be an independent country, it is undoubtedly too large to be a mental institution . . .

In accepting the Heritage Foundation presidency, DeMint signals that if the Tea Party is going to have any success in shaping America's future, it will have to come from outside the two-party system. This past election is causing the Republican establishment to rethink and reassess what it's going to take to once again be  competitive on the national level.  From various actions taken over the past couple of weeks, it seems obvious that the GOP leadership has concluded that Tea Party extremism is not the way to go; that while bowing and scraping to their party's reactionary wing may win them eternal life, it won't win back the White House or the Senate.   

Unless and until the GOP establishment can groom new, less reactionary leadership, it will be a party with neither a compass nor a rudder.  And while Democrats may crow with delight at this turn of events -- the implosion of the "loyal opposition" -- some second thoughts are in order.  Ours is meant to be a two-party system.  Much of our progress as a nation is the product of two parties reaching compromises -- of creating  programs and policies which both sides can accept even when not totally in love. Simply stated, one cannot bargain or compromise with oneself; one needs opposition.

Even as Senator DeMint is exiting stage right -- and getting a 500% salary bump in the process -- former Florida Governor Charlie Crist is entering stage left.  Crist, who was elected governor in 2006 as a Republican, ran unsuccessfully for the senate in 2010 as an independent, has become a Democrat in the last days of 2012.  Crist signed the papers changing his party affiliation during a Christmas reception at the White House. President Obama -- for whom Governor Crist campaigned tirelessly -- greeted the news with a fist bump.   

Crist stated that his reasons for switching parties included the Republican's move to the far right on a host of issues.  Sensing that the change signals Crist's desire to run against current Florida Governor Jim Scott in 2014 -- a reasonable assumption to be sure -- Republicans are already mounting a campaign of vilification against the nation's newest high-profile Democrat.  This tactic might actually backfire; it shows that state Republicans are concerned about what a Crist candidacy might mean for Scott's reelection chances.  And while many Democrats are wary of Crist's change of party -- remembering that not too long ago he was a fairly conservative Republican -- and see him as a political opportunist, he may well be the party's best chance for defeating the widely unpopular Scott.

(On a personal note, I first met Charlie Crist about a decade ago when he was still a state senator.  I was on the senate floor, having been invited to give the day's opening invocation.  Following the prayer, Senator Crist came up, thanked me, asked for my card, and said he hoped we would meet again.  Two days later I received a very nice hand-written note from him.  I remember thinking "I may not agree with the man, but he certainly knows how to build bridges.")

I wish both Senator DeMint and Governor Crist well in their new endeavors.  May the former enjoy becoming a millionaire and stay as far away from electoral politics as is humanly possible.  And may the latter be a happy productive Democrat for years to come. 

©2012 Kurt F. Stone