“Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?” (Joseph Welch to Sen. Joseph McCarthy during Senate hearings where McCarthy accused Army officials of harboring communists, June, 1954)
Biblically, believers are commanded to not seek their own interests but rather to pursue the interests of others (cf. Phil 2. 4). Also, in the face of oppression, we are to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Mt.5:44). Yet, we are also called to defend those who are the victims of injustice (Ps. 83:3). The martyred German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer called for the church to defend those who were the victims of injustice, whether they were members of the church or not. Biblically, it seems, that the reason one can pursue the interests of others without fear of oppression is that one should be assured that Christ and his followers are also looking out him.
Which brings we to a recent spate of attacks by FOX News commentator Glenn Beck on the Rev. Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, a ministry committed to Christian peace and justice by combining faith and progressive politics to strive for social justice. Last week Beck told his audience that if their pastors teach about social justice that they should leave their church and report the pastor to church authorities. His reason is that that “social justice is a perversion of the Gospel” and “a rallying cry on both the communist front and fascist front.” Beck has also called Wallis a “communist” and his attacks have also fueled WorldNetDaily, a conservative news website, to claiming that Wallis is a “longtime socialist,” “founder of the far-left magazine, Sojourners” (which he is) and former leader of the Michigan Students for a Democratic Society (which he was not).
In defense of Wallis, he is certainly in the progressive tradition. Progressives generally seek political, economic, social and moral reforms which seek to address systemic injustices in society. Wallis’ latest book, Rediscovering Values, is an examination of the abuses of Wall Street and the current economic crisis that focuses on the greed and avarice of the banking and financial industries and calls for moral-based forms of regulation. Wallis does not claim to be a leftist, Democrat, or socialist, but prefers to describe himself as part of the “moral middle,” a group that does not align itself politically to any party but considers the biblical imperatives for particular issues. It is a perspective captured in the title of a previous bestseller, God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets it Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get it. Wallis is pro-life (a conservative issue), but also notes that being pro-life needs to extend to issues of health insurance, good schools and environment (more liberal issues). Of note is that, historically, progressives came from both parties, with notable Republicans (e.g., Theodore Roosevelt, Robert La Follette) and Democrats (e.g. Woodrow Wilson) among its champions.
What Beck has sought to do is control the definitions of terms like “social justice,” and “communist.” Beck and WorldNewsNet (in calling Wallis “far-left”) does not define the terms, but rather uses emotional language to paint Wallis as someone odious to their audiences. Relationally, any moderate Republican, people like Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and George H.W. Bush, would all be “leftist” in comparison. Wallis, to his credit, has vowed not to personally attack Beck and has offered to discuss his ideas of social justice. Beck has responded to Wallis’ offer by stating…
“So Jim, I just wanted to pass this on to you. In my time I will respond — my time, well, kind of like God’s time, might be a day, might be a week to you, I’m not sure. But I’m going to get to it in my time, not your time. So you go ahead and you continue to do your protest thing, and that’s great. I love it. But just know — the hammer is coming, because little do you know, for eight weeks, we’ve been compiling information on you, your cute little organization, and all the other cute little people that are with you. And when the hammer comes, it’s going to be hammering hard and all through the night, over and over…”
Now I can point out that Beck’s own Church of Latter-day Saints sees social justice as essential to Mormonism. I can also note that Beck’s attacks are based on his idea of the separation of church and state, all the while he supports conservative revisionist-historian David Barton to use church influence on the state if it serves conservative ends (apparently progressive people of faith are not allowed to bring their faith into the pubic square). As the Center for American Progress notes, “Beck does not distinguish the difference between imposing one’s religious views on others and acts of civic or public engagement based on faith.” This is not an isolated tactic. On March 11th, at a forum at Cedarville University where conservative Marvin Olasky (editor or World Magazine and author or Compassionate Conservativism) met Wallis in a forum on biblical responses to poverty, Olasky continually tried to tie Wallis to socialism (he used “equality” defined as equal redistribution of wealth) and read a passage from a fictious “Sojourner’s Bible” where he interpreted the parable of the Good Samaritan in socialist terms and attributed this to Wallis and his organization. Wallis, to his credit, not only refuted Olasky’s claims but did so in a way that was much more gracious than how Olasky (and more recently Beck) have been treating him.
Here is my point—where are the brethren standing up to Beck for his slanderous attacks on Wallis and his perversion of a concept that is central to the Scriptures themselves? To his credit Albert Mohler, conservative President of Southern Baptist Seminary, has challenged Beck’s attack on social justice. However, who will stand up to Beck on behalf of Wallis? Beck’s ruthless attacks, both now and in the future, can only continue if he is provided cover by conservative religious leaders that will tolerate (i.e., passively endorse) these attacks. Where is Rick Warren, James Dobson, or other prominent conservative religious leaders? I have a very difficult time believing that Beck would continue his attacks against Wallis if conservative people of faith would simply say that they disagree with Wallis’s theology but the personal attacks are both uncalled for and violate the spirit of grace that we, as Christians, are called to exhibit. Failure to do so provides Beck the tacit assent he needs to continue his campaign of slander.
To close let me cite the confession of another German pastor, Martin Niemoller, in a speech he gave in 1946 on his failure to address the oppression of the Nazis.
"They came first for the Communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Friday, March 19, 2010
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Bipartisan Bifurcation
Two weeks after Republican Scott Brown was elected to the US Senate, President Obama, speaking to the Democratic Congressional leadership announced that “the election of Scott Brown gives the Republicans a 41-59 majority in the Senate.” The statement was obviously directed at his party to act like a majority and govern in a way that they had not managed to do in the 13 months since gaining control of both houses of Congress.
Earlier this week moderate Democratic Senator Evan Byah of Indiana announced that he would not seek re-election this fall, noting that he no longer enjoyed serving and stating that the virulent partisan atmosphere in the Senate was like daily “going to war.” Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, responded by noting Byah was just running scared and feared losing this November like many other Democrats of late (a statement that seems to confirm Byah’s basic point).
Yesterday, the Washington Post column by Ezra Klein noted that several private economic and market watch groups had concluded that the Obama stimulus package has, indeed, been successful. David Moody of the New York Times wrote, "Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative." Of course you would never know this listening to conservative media outlets who consistently run some story of a small town mayor who spent some infinitesimal amount of stimulus money for some ridiculous project or that a sign was put up along the road announcing that a project was paid for by stimulus money.
Next week the President will host a meeting of Congressional leaders from both parties to work on a compromise to the stalled health care bill. This meeting will occur in the shadow of recently released corporate earnings reports by the five leading health insurance companies announcing record profits for the last fiscal year, a 56% increase over fiscal 2008. These earnings coming at a time when many of these same companies raising premiums on their policyholders. Ironically, the health care bill that was passed through the Senate in December 2009 is not fundamentally different than one proposed by the Republicans during the Clinton administration. The only difference seems to be that now the Democrats are in the majority and any reform would be seen as a victory for the Democrats.
It is no surprise that bipartisanship in government, it seems at every level, is virtually impossible. The frustration that most Americans feel about this situation is expressed in some of the latest job approval rating of Congress. According to a recent CBS / New York Times poll 75% of Americans disapprove of the job performance of Congress; Gallup places the number at 78%. The gridlock in Washington and that often characterizes state and even local government has become poisoned by the self-interested ambitions of individual politicians and political parties. Two observations would seem to highlight.
First, when the Democrats had a 60 vote majority in the Senate it seemed that anything they wanted to do was virtually guaranteed unless any single member sought personal political gain over the intentions of the group. This is exactly what happened as majority leader Harry Reid had to court every vote from moderate Republicans and rogue Democrats to try and get a bill passed. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) held out his health care vote to procure a 45 million dollar deal for his state. Joe Lieberman has lately made a career out of holding out his vote on nearly every important issue, a tactic that get him constant press coverage and spots on virtually all of the cable channels and Sunday morning political commentary shows.
Second is that government is no longer about governing, which use to mean promoting the general welfare, but about politics which is a game more concerned with winning and losing. In such a climate one cannot be bipartisan for in doing so the majority party would tend to receive the majority of credit. In essence, it is politically better for a minority party to stall legislation than to work with the majority. Failure to pass legislation will be perceived as weakness by the electorate and have favorable consequences for the minority in the next election cycle. This certainly seems to be the strategy of the Republicans who recently have become the “just say no” party in hopes of significant gains in the November mid-term elections.
The problem, of course, is that there are significant issues regarding the public good that have to be addressed and must be addressed now. Health care cost, by all projections, are predicted to continue to rise, a problem which will hamper the economy. The national unemployment rate is approximately 8% not counting those who have given up looking for work. The federal deficit continues to rise and cannot be controlled, let alone paid down, simply by reducing spending. As the population ages, the demands of Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursements will even further strain an already bloated federal deficit. This will require hard choices regarding where to find revenue from both sides of the aisle (and does either party, but especially Republicans, have a vested interest in raising taxes?).
The early 20th c. journalist and essayist H.L. Mencken summed up the current situation for us when he wrote, “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.” Has our seeming insatiable appetite for spectacle lead to politics being more fascinating than good governance? Has our own desire to promote self-interest lead us to continue to tolerate, even venerate, politicians who only promote theirs? Has the fear and insecurity that current economic conditions or the threats created by a “war on terror” that can never end made us so self-focused that we fail to consider each other—and has this fear and insecurity been manipulated by others to promote their own selfish gains?
The preamble to the Constitution begins “We the people.” In the Gettysburg Address Abraham Lincoln noted that we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Government exists to promote the general welfare and the common good. Lincoln, in his first inaugural addressed, said to all Americans that “we must not be enemies” and to appealed to the “better angels of our nature.” Unless “we the people” begin to think in terms of the common good, not simply our own self-interest, will be never get representatives that will be compelled to act in the same way. We cannot simply “throw the bums out” (as many Tea Party members advocate), for the problems noted above will just change sides of the aisle. Historically, real changes to government in our country are bottom-up; grass roots movements that reflect the character, not simply the anger or fear, of the people. As the words of the proverb state, “where there is no vision [beyond ourselves] the people perish.”
Earlier this week moderate Democratic Senator Evan Byah of Indiana announced that he would not seek re-election this fall, noting that he no longer enjoyed serving and stating that the virulent partisan atmosphere in the Senate was like daily “going to war.” Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, responded by noting Byah was just running scared and feared losing this November like many other Democrats of late (a statement that seems to confirm Byah’s basic point).
Yesterday, the Washington Post column by Ezra Klein noted that several private economic and market watch groups had concluded that the Obama stimulus package has, indeed, been successful. David Moody of the New York Times wrote, "Perhaps the best-known economic research firms are IHS Global Insight, Macroeconomic Advisers and Moody’s Economy.com. They all estimate that the bill has added 1.6 million to 1.8 million jobs so far and that its ultimate impact will be roughly 2.5 million jobs. The Congressional Budget Office, an independent agency, considers these estimates to be conservative." Of course you would never know this listening to conservative media outlets who consistently run some story of a small town mayor who spent some infinitesimal amount of stimulus money for some ridiculous project or that a sign was put up along the road announcing that a project was paid for by stimulus money.
Next week the President will host a meeting of Congressional leaders from both parties to work on a compromise to the stalled health care bill. This meeting will occur in the shadow of recently released corporate earnings reports by the five leading health insurance companies announcing record profits for the last fiscal year, a 56% increase over fiscal 2008. These earnings coming at a time when many of these same companies raising premiums on their policyholders. Ironically, the health care bill that was passed through the Senate in December 2009 is not fundamentally different than one proposed by the Republicans during the Clinton administration. The only difference seems to be that now the Democrats are in the majority and any reform would be seen as a victory for the Democrats.
It is no surprise that bipartisanship in government, it seems at every level, is virtually impossible. The frustration that most Americans feel about this situation is expressed in some of the latest job approval rating of Congress. According to a recent CBS / New York Times poll 75% of Americans disapprove of the job performance of Congress; Gallup places the number at 78%. The gridlock in Washington and that often characterizes state and even local government has become poisoned by the self-interested ambitions of individual politicians and political parties. Two observations would seem to highlight.
First, when the Democrats had a 60 vote majority in the Senate it seemed that anything they wanted to do was virtually guaranteed unless any single member sought personal political gain over the intentions of the group. This is exactly what happened as majority leader Harry Reid had to court every vote from moderate Republicans and rogue Democrats to try and get a bill passed. Senator Ben Nelson (D-Neb) held out his health care vote to procure a 45 million dollar deal for his state. Joe Lieberman has lately made a career out of holding out his vote on nearly every important issue, a tactic that get him constant press coverage and spots on virtually all of the cable channels and Sunday morning political commentary shows.
Second is that government is no longer about governing, which use to mean promoting the general welfare, but about politics which is a game more concerned with winning and losing. In such a climate one cannot be bipartisan for in doing so the majority party would tend to receive the majority of credit. In essence, it is politically better for a minority party to stall legislation than to work with the majority. Failure to pass legislation will be perceived as weakness by the electorate and have favorable consequences for the minority in the next election cycle. This certainly seems to be the strategy of the Republicans who recently have become the “just say no” party in hopes of significant gains in the November mid-term elections.
The problem, of course, is that there are significant issues regarding the public good that have to be addressed and must be addressed now. Health care cost, by all projections, are predicted to continue to rise, a problem which will hamper the economy. The national unemployment rate is approximately 8% not counting those who have given up looking for work. The federal deficit continues to rise and cannot be controlled, let alone paid down, simply by reducing spending. As the population ages, the demands of Social Security payments and Medicare reimbursements will even further strain an already bloated federal deficit. This will require hard choices regarding where to find revenue from both sides of the aisle (and does either party, but especially Republicans, have a vested interest in raising taxes?).
The early 20th c. journalist and essayist H.L. Mencken summed up the current situation for us when he wrote, “People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard.” Has our seeming insatiable appetite for spectacle lead to politics being more fascinating than good governance? Has our own desire to promote self-interest lead us to continue to tolerate, even venerate, politicians who only promote theirs? Has the fear and insecurity that current economic conditions or the threats created by a “war on terror” that can never end made us so self-focused that we fail to consider each other—and has this fear and insecurity been manipulated by others to promote their own selfish gains?
The preamble to the Constitution begins “We the people.” In the Gettysburg Address Abraham Lincoln noted that we are a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” Government exists to promote the general welfare and the common good. Lincoln, in his first inaugural addressed, said to all Americans that “we must not be enemies” and to appealed to the “better angels of our nature.” Unless “we the people” begin to think in terms of the common good, not simply our own self-interest, will be never get representatives that will be compelled to act in the same way. We cannot simply “throw the bums out” (as many Tea Party members advocate), for the problems noted above will just change sides of the aisle. Historically, real changes to government in our country are bottom-up; grass roots movements that reflect the character, not simply the anger or fear, of the people. As the words of the proverb state, “where there is no vision [beyond ourselves] the people perish.”
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Big (Baby) Blue
On January 21st the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to reverse a 63-year-old ban preventing corporations from using their profits to either support or oppose political candidates. In the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, voting along ideological lines, the conservative justices noted that the decision declares “unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.” While the decision still prevents corporations or other public entities from giving funds directly to candidates, it now allows such entities to give unlimited funds to promote or oppose any candidate or position in the best interest of the corporation. In all fairness this decision MAY also allows labor unions and other non-profit entities the same access (I explain MAY below) but I will stick with corporations because a) they have a lot more money, b) they have been granted special status, and c) I am pro-labor. The conservative opinion of the Court noted that limiting the contributions of corporations represented a “ban on free speech inconsistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution.” In effect, by protecting corporations right to freedom of speech the Court declared corporations as persons and therefore guaranteed rights under the Constitution.
While the Court voted away 63 years of precedent (which seriously questions some justices pretentions of judicial restraint), the tactic of bestowing personhood to corporations has a long history among pro-business conservatives. In 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad the Court settled a case as to who had the right to determine and assess taxes on the railroad (Southern Pacific Railroad won the case). Of interest in this decision, however, was a head note included in the opinion by a Court reporter, a former railroad president J.C. Bancroft Davis which stated: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” With a stroke of the pen Davis wrote corporate personhood into the opinion of the Court in this decision.
Oddly, the Court had ruled no such status for corporations. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, in a handwritten note which can be found in the National Archives, states that nowhere in the decision does the Court grant personhood to corporations. After the decision, however, corporate lawyers quoted the head note when arguing before the Court and conservative justices (many ideologically prone to side with corporations) eventually did write the corporation as person idea into precedent. Prior to 1886 the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “rights” only to individuals, other artificial entities chartered by the state (e.g., corporations, unions, churches, etc.) only had privileges, not rights—privileges that could be revoked if the entity violated its charter. The Davis note and subsequent opinions by the Court moved corporations to the status of having rights while other entities (e.g. labor unions, non-profits, and churches) only have privilege status. Thus, a corporation can now endorse any candidate or position it desires under First Amendment protection. A church (or pastor) that did the same might find itself losing its tax-exempt status.
Personally, this decision by the Court was not unexpected, at least by me. When justices Roberts and Alito joined the Court, swinging the balance of the ideological right, many social conservatives saw the opportunity to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which constitutionally protects a woman’s right to an abortion. Religious conservatives have claimed, rightly, that the decision violates the Image of God in the unborn child. For this reason religious conservatives have been adamant about stacking the court to provide the votes necessary to overturn Roe. The Citizen’s United decision represents a classic case of being careful what you wish for. Ideologically the same justices religious conservatives are trusting to restore rights to the unborn are equally (or even more prone) to extend personhood to corporations which are vastly more powerful, not subject to same criminal punishments as individuals, have no soul (and therefore are not moral entities) and, with the revoking of laws which previously required corporations to be re-charter, can also live into perpetuity.
The sad reality of this corporate personhood, insofar as it protects political freedom of speech, is that corporations are not subject to the same constraints as you or I. If I yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre I am subject to punishment and fine (I may falsely induce a panic which even under the First Amendment I do not the right to do). Political ads, however, are not subject to the same truth in advertising laws as those of products. If an advertisement makes false claims about a product that company can be sued for false advertising. If a false claim is made about a candidate only the candidate can seek recourse by suing for libel. Unless there is a serious defamation of character the candidate is often unwilling to do so since it generally produces a negative backlash against the candidate. The result, I fear, is that we will not see the type of outrageous “Swift boat” types of campaign ads which will only make political campaigns more negative and poison an already cynical electorate.
I take the idea of Image of God quite seriously. It is why I am pro-life and why I find this decision by the Court to be abominable. Yet, I have yet to hear anyone among the leading religious conservatives condemn the Court on this decision. Brethren, if we don’t stand for principle, even if it means confronting those to whom we are allied, we are nothing more than any other special interest group. If that is who we are we should not be surprised when that is the way we are treated—regardless of who is in power.
While the Court voted away 63 years of precedent (which seriously questions some justices pretentions of judicial restraint), the tactic of bestowing personhood to corporations has a long history among pro-business conservatives. In 1886 in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad the Court settled a case as to who had the right to determine and assess taxes on the railroad (Southern Pacific Railroad won the case). Of interest in this decision, however, was a head note included in the opinion by a Court reporter, a former railroad president J.C. Bancroft Davis which stated: “The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” With a stroke of the pen Davis wrote corporate personhood into the opinion of the Court in this decision.
Oddly, the Court had ruled no such status for corporations. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, in a handwritten note which can be found in the National Archives, states that nowhere in the decision does the Court grant personhood to corporations. After the decision, however, corporate lawyers quoted the head note when arguing before the Court and conservative justices (many ideologically prone to side with corporations) eventually did write the corporation as person idea into precedent. Prior to 1886 the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed “rights” only to individuals, other artificial entities chartered by the state (e.g., corporations, unions, churches, etc.) only had privileges, not rights—privileges that could be revoked if the entity violated its charter. The Davis note and subsequent opinions by the Court moved corporations to the status of having rights while other entities (e.g. labor unions, non-profits, and churches) only have privilege status. Thus, a corporation can now endorse any candidate or position it desires under First Amendment protection. A church (or pastor) that did the same might find itself losing its tax-exempt status.
Personally, this decision by the Court was not unexpected, at least by me. When justices Roberts and Alito joined the Court, swinging the balance of the ideological right, many social conservatives saw the opportunity to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which constitutionally protects a woman’s right to an abortion. Religious conservatives have claimed, rightly, that the decision violates the Image of God in the unborn child. For this reason religious conservatives have been adamant about stacking the court to provide the votes necessary to overturn Roe. The Citizen’s United decision represents a classic case of being careful what you wish for. Ideologically the same justices religious conservatives are trusting to restore rights to the unborn are equally (or even more prone) to extend personhood to corporations which are vastly more powerful, not subject to same criminal punishments as individuals, have no soul (and therefore are not moral entities) and, with the revoking of laws which previously required corporations to be re-charter, can also live into perpetuity.
The sad reality of this corporate personhood, insofar as it protects political freedom of speech, is that corporations are not subject to the same constraints as you or I. If I yell “Fire” in a crowded theatre I am subject to punishment and fine (I may falsely induce a panic which even under the First Amendment I do not the right to do). Political ads, however, are not subject to the same truth in advertising laws as those of products. If an advertisement makes false claims about a product that company can be sued for false advertising. If a false claim is made about a candidate only the candidate can seek recourse by suing for libel. Unless there is a serious defamation of character the candidate is often unwilling to do so since it generally produces a negative backlash against the candidate. The result, I fear, is that we will not see the type of outrageous “Swift boat” types of campaign ads which will only make political campaigns more negative and poison an already cynical electorate.
I take the idea of Image of God quite seriously. It is why I am pro-life and why I find this decision by the Court to be abominable. Yet, I have yet to hear anyone among the leading religious conservatives condemn the Court on this decision. Brethren, if we don’t stand for principle, even if it means confronting those to whom we are allied, we are nothing more than any other special interest group. If that is who we are we should not be surprised when that is the way we are treated—regardless of who is in power.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Let the Finger Pointing Begin
OK—I am a little blue spot in the candy apple red sea conservative environment which is my place of employment. When people on campus who know my political leanings tell me that they hope that “God will have mercy on my soul,” I find the doctrine of eternal security comforting, assuring them that He has, and move on. My ideological leanings (political not doctrinal) however often force me to become an apologist for all things in blue in the area of politics. Its dirty work at times but hey, it was religious people who often were responsible for persecuting prophets.
That said, the news of Scott Brown upset victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate has had many people coming to me asking questions like “what happened to the Democrats?”or “is this election of historic significance?” Most come, it seems, not simply as neutral seekers of information. There is a bit of “we gotcha” gleam in their eyes which seems to reflect the obviously giddy affect and comments of the anchors of FOX and Friends. The second question is easy to answer—we will wait and see. The nature of historic significance will depend on the results of the election on policy. Brown is not the first Republican to be a senator from Massachusetts even if there has not been one since 1972 (by contrast, Obama’s election which was historic as the first African-American President). The first question, however, is more difficult to answer—what did happen to the Democrats in an election that should have been (and up until a few weeks ago looked like) an easy victory for the party.
Obviously Brown’s victory will cause a great deal of soul-searching, and dare I say finger pointing, among Democrats. It should—only 12% of Massachusetts voters are registered Republicans while almost 38% percent are Democrats. This means that slightly more than 50% of voters in the state see themselves as independents and most of those tend to lean left. This should have been an easy election for the Democrats to win. Already it has been noted that Democratic challenger, State Attorney General Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign that will probably become textbook of what NOT to do if you are a candidate. While I think there is some merit to that criticism, it is certainly not enough to explain the appeal that Brown had to win over a large number of independents and some cross over Democrats in an election where voter turnout was heavy.
Let me offer some of my reasons why Brown won. The biggest reason, in my humble opinion, is the performance of Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. The voters of Massachusetts were the first to react to the brokering that Reid has done to try and win support for a health care bill in the Senate. The most blatant and most publicized instance is the extortion deal cut by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to get 100% federal funding of Medicare for his state. Nelson’s whoring of his vote in tight negotiations in the Senate found a willing “trick” in Reid. Please note, the amount of money here is relatively small and the provision would not have taken effect until 2016, plenty of time for Congress to repeal any promises made to Nelson, but the political fallout is immeasurable. Just a few weeks ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter of health care reform, asked California’s congressional delegation to stop supporting reform unless they could get a “sweetheart deal” like Nebraska’s. Nelson’s ploy, and Reid acquiesce is, of course, political unsustainable—and the sausage making tactics of the majority leader has created a bill that is easy to allow its opponents to divide and conquer. Please note that 80% of Massachusetts voters support the state’s universal health care coverage program. I believe that many voters were not voting against health care reform as much as the way the process has gone forward, particularly in the Senate.
I also don’t discount that for most people unemployment and job creation is THE issue. Nationally unemployment is around 10% while it remains at about 8% in Massachusetts. People are, understandable, nervous and angry at the state of the economy and inpatient at the rate of recovery. The whys of failure and prognosis for the future make great debate but it is the current situation that fuels voters and so there is a “throw the bums out” mentality that manifested itself in the Brown election. As FOX noted, the results show that “any Democrat can lose anywhere to any Republican.” I will grant this but GOP members in Congress should also take note that they may well be one of the “bums” that voters may want to throw out in November. In recent years the GOP’s reputation as being innovative and having progressive ideas that benefit average Americans has been shaky at best. While spewing the standard litany of tax cuts and riding the anger of social conservatives many independent voters continue to see the Republicans as the party that will simply “just say no.”
To return to the question of the historic nature of the Brown election I will say that the election will be historic if it moves both parties toward the middle ideologically and spurs a sense of compromise and seeking to promote the common good of all Americans. If it doesn't, if Brown's election simply gives the Republicans the ability fo filbuster and block legislation in the Senate it is not historic (unless you want to claim that maintianing the staus quo constitutes a historic move). Given the state of politics in Washington, where the financial backing of wealthy interests is critical to gaining or holding office, the prospects of historic are slim. Yet, as the two parties continue to become more ideologically polarized it is the growing number of moderate independent voters who will make or break candidate electoral fortunes—in blue Massachusetts or the reddest districts in the South. In the end, votes will triumph over dollars and representatives will work more actively for their whole constituency and simply special interests donors if they want to continue to serve in office. Well, that is the hope we maintain in a representative democracy.
That said, the news of Scott Brown upset victory in the Massachusetts special election for U.S. Senate has had many people coming to me asking questions like “what happened to the Democrats?”or “is this election of historic significance?” Most come, it seems, not simply as neutral seekers of information. There is a bit of “we gotcha” gleam in their eyes which seems to reflect the obviously giddy affect and comments of the anchors of FOX and Friends. The second question is easy to answer—we will wait and see. The nature of historic significance will depend on the results of the election on policy. Brown is not the first Republican to be a senator from Massachusetts even if there has not been one since 1972 (by contrast, Obama’s election which was historic as the first African-American President). The first question, however, is more difficult to answer—what did happen to the Democrats in an election that should have been (and up until a few weeks ago looked like) an easy victory for the party.
Obviously Brown’s victory will cause a great deal of soul-searching, and dare I say finger pointing, among Democrats. It should—only 12% of Massachusetts voters are registered Republicans while almost 38% percent are Democrats. This means that slightly more than 50% of voters in the state see themselves as independents and most of those tend to lean left. This should have been an easy election for the Democrats to win. Already it has been noted that Democratic challenger, State Attorney General Martha Coakley ran a terrible campaign that will probably become textbook of what NOT to do if you are a candidate. While I think there is some merit to that criticism, it is certainly not enough to explain the appeal that Brown had to win over a large number of independents and some cross over Democrats in an election where voter turnout was heavy.
Let me offer some of my reasons why Brown won. The biggest reason, in my humble opinion, is the performance of Harry Reid as Senate majority leader. The voters of Massachusetts were the first to react to the brokering that Reid has done to try and win support for a health care bill in the Senate. The most blatant and most publicized instance is the extortion deal cut by Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson to get 100% federal funding of Medicare for his state. Nelson’s whoring of his vote in tight negotiations in the Senate found a willing “trick” in Reid. Please note, the amount of money here is relatively small and the provision would not have taken effect until 2016, plenty of time for Congress to repeal any promises made to Nelson, but the political fallout is immeasurable. Just a few weeks ago California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a supporter of health care reform, asked California’s congressional delegation to stop supporting reform unless they could get a “sweetheart deal” like Nebraska’s. Nelson’s ploy, and Reid acquiesce is, of course, political unsustainable—and the sausage making tactics of the majority leader has created a bill that is easy to allow its opponents to divide and conquer. Please note that 80% of Massachusetts voters support the state’s universal health care coverage program. I believe that many voters were not voting against health care reform as much as the way the process has gone forward, particularly in the Senate.
I also don’t discount that for most people unemployment and job creation is THE issue. Nationally unemployment is around 10% while it remains at about 8% in Massachusetts. People are, understandable, nervous and angry at the state of the economy and inpatient at the rate of recovery. The whys of failure and prognosis for the future make great debate but it is the current situation that fuels voters and so there is a “throw the bums out” mentality that manifested itself in the Brown election. As FOX noted, the results show that “any Democrat can lose anywhere to any Republican.” I will grant this but GOP members in Congress should also take note that they may well be one of the “bums” that voters may want to throw out in November. In recent years the GOP’s reputation as being innovative and having progressive ideas that benefit average Americans has been shaky at best. While spewing the standard litany of tax cuts and riding the anger of social conservatives many independent voters continue to see the Republicans as the party that will simply “just say no.”
To return to the question of the historic nature of the Brown election I will say that the election will be historic if it moves both parties toward the middle ideologically and spurs a sense of compromise and seeking to promote the common good of all Americans. If it doesn't, if Brown's election simply gives the Republicans the ability fo filbuster and block legislation in the Senate it is not historic (unless you want to claim that maintianing the staus quo constitutes a historic move). Given the state of politics in Washington, where the financial backing of wealthy interests is critical to gaining or holding office, the prospects of historic are slim. Yet, as the two parties continue to become more ideologically polarized it is the growing number of moderate independent voters who will make or break candidate electoral fortunes—in blue Massachusetts or the reddest districts in the South. In the end, votes will triumph over dollars and representatives will work more actively for their whole constituency and simply special interests donors if they want to continue to serve in office. Well, that is the hope we maintain in a representative democracy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
