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.”
Thursday, February 18, 2010
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
