Posts Tagged ‘Barack Obama’

The Thinker

Defusing the angry Trumpsters

Sorry I haven’t been posting lately. For being sort of retired, my life has been plenty busy lately. Mainly I’ve been hosting family, who seem to have finally accepted that we have moved to Western Massachusetts and suddenly want to visit. My brother arrived for a weeklong visit. In the middle of it my sister arrived, along with my stepmother. For eleven days we enjoyed their company, fed them and took them places. Now things are getting back to normal and I can think about blogging again.

What thought that have been occupying my brain these last couple of weeks have not been Donald Trump, but the people who support him. Trump has been true to his form, going from crazy to crazier. I no longer worry at all about him winning the election. As I said in June, Trump is toast. I’d like to think he is smart enough to realize this, but he is surprisingly tone deaf to things like his ultra high negatives and polling that shows him pulling farther behind Hillary Clinton.

He seems convinced that he will somehow pull this election thing off somehow, unless it gets “stolen” somehow. (What a strange concern from a party that has been putting up voting roadblocks for poor and minorities.) Even Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) has thrown in his towel. For months he was dogmatically certain that Trump had us all hypnotized. He had said he had 98% confidence that Trump would win the election because he excelled at mass hypnosis and persuasion techniques. I do give him credit for one thing: Trump certainly has his followers hypnotized. It seems there is nothing too wild that he can say (the latest is that President Obama “founded” ISIS) that will dissuade his followers from voting for him. Fortunately this is but a sizeable minority of the country. To quote Bertrand Russell, the rest of us aren’t hypnotized; we are “uncomfortably awake”. You know you are in trouble when my stepmother, who reads Bill O’Reilly’s books and watches Fox News told us she couldn’t vote for Trump. Hillary will get her vote.

This is not my first rumination about Trump’s followers. This is America, and we’re entitled to believe any crazy thing we want, which is why many of us are dogmatically certain the earth is only 6000 years old. We don’t give up our prejudices easily and I’m no exception. Rest assured though that if Bernie Sanders were the pompous, gaseous windbag that Donald Trump is I would have been the first to run away from him. A few of Trump’s halfhearted supporters have seen the light, which is mostly figuring out what side their bread is buttered on. Establishment Republicans are working hard to shut their eyes and stop their ears until after the election. They too live in the real world and they know a political disaster of potentially Biblical proportions is about to be unleashed in November against them. They are hoping their firewall of gerrymandering will allow them to maintain some modicum of political control, at least in the House. The Senate is looking likely to flip back to the Democrats.

The late Eric Hoffer wrote a number of interesting books, including The Ordeal of Change and The True Believer. It is the latter book that I am thinking about tonight. Most of us are true believers in the sense that we have certain core beliefs that virtually nothing can change. I fall into this category too. We are not open to evidence that contravenes our predetermined positions, which is why it’s very hard to get someone to change those opinions and beliefs they are most passionate about. Sometimes it takes cataclysm. In the case of Japan, it took two nuclear bombs to get them to surrender and a benevolent overlord (the United States) to introduce rational government (democracy). Just to be on the safe side though we clipped Japan’s wings, not allowing it to develop nuclear weapons or an army capable of fighting in a foreign war. In Trump’s supporters I see a lot of people behaving a lot like the Japanese before their surrender, i.e. true believers. Trump seems to be egging them on with a recent comment that suggested that those who favor the Second Amendment might unseat a President Hillary Clinton using their guns, which most read as his sanctioning her assassination.

The most dangerous day for our democracy since the Civil War may be the day after the general election, November 9, and what comes out of Trump’s mouth when he loses. Based on his bullheadedness and lack of impulse control, I would not be surprised if he asked his followers to rise up. After all, it will be the only way to “make America great again” if we unwisely choose “Crooked Hillary”. It would probably land him in jail, but it’s unclear if this would bother him, as stoking his ego seems to be all that matters. Would his supporters actually try insurrection? And if so how can it be prevented?

I think at least some will, with or without an overt call. Trump will probably call for it using weasel words that will sound like he is not directly calling for such an action, but his supporters will know what he is signaling. I think even if he says nothing at least some of his supporters will attempt to take matters into their own hands. It may be a handful of incidents or it may turn into something much more long term: attempts at insurrection that could look indistinguishable from terrorism. After all, if your cause is just, terrorism is just another tactic.

It’s hard for me to feel sympathy for Trump supporters. If any group deserves to hit the concrete, it will be his supporters. In reality, the whole Republican establishment could stand for a tar and feathering. We Democrats though are too nonviolent to do something like this. His supporters though are full of energy and certainty about the rightness of their positions. If we know anything about energy, a pocket of energy will eventually burst its container if it grows large enough. So how does an enlightened society gently prick this Trump balloon so rather than explode violently it gently drains away? How do we lead the Tea Party and Trump supporters to a better and more productive place?

Ideally, Trump would be statesmanlike enough to do this, but that’s not a likely option here. Part of the solution would be for key Republicans to forcefully and repeatedly state that insurrection and violence are not options. It wouldn’t hurt if Republicans said that anyone advocating these things would be expelled from their party. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be a good person to say this, as his loathing for all things Democratic is hardly unknown. Speaker Paul Ryan can and likely would do the same thing, but he has considerably less influence and power than McConnell. Doubtless the Bush family, Mitt Romney and most of the Republican presidential candidates would say the same. It’s important though for these people to speak up on this now, be clear and be loud throughout the general election campaign. At this point none of these people seem to be entertaining the idea that anyone in their flock needs such a lecture.

They also need a plan for the day after the election that Tea Partiers can latch onto with some measure of hope. It will be mostly more of what they did after Obama was elected: promising total obstruction, something Mitch McConnell was quite effective in doing. It won’t make a President-elect Hillary Clinton happy but it may staunch a rebellion. Hillary Clinton probably can and will speak forcefully after her election calling for calm and making it clear that she will not propose anything more than modest gun control legislation. (She is already doing the latter, but Tea Partiers aren’t listening or simply don’t believe her.)

What will prove key is how President Obama reacts to any scattered attempts at insurrection. We still have a National Guard that has controlling insurrection as part of its mission. However, when incidents are scattered and low-key, they won’t prove effective using traditional tactics. We do have police forces with plenty of armaments more suited to warfare than policing. That will help.

My suspicion is that Obama is already all over this, and this is part of his daily national security briefing. There are likely all sorts of contingency plans and all sorts of discreet surveillance going on by the NSA and FBI to nip a lot of these in the bud. But not even the NSA can be everywhere and it’s easy to acquire firearms. More lethal armaments are likely out there for those with the money and connections. All we can really do is hope they are doing their job. If they are, the bomb that are Trump supporters may mostly diffuse before Election Day.

 
The Thinker

Unwinding the crazy (or why Obama and Mitt Romney need to talk)

So my daughter has been chatting with me on Skype. She wants to know: “Dad, have politics ever this crazy?” She would actually take some comfort in knowing that demagogues like Donald Trump have actually arisen before and have had a stake put through their hearts.

I had to tell her no, not in my lifetime anyhow and not within the United States. There are plenty of demagogues out there all the time, but few come around as Donald Trump has to create cyclones of ill will all for the purpose of acquiring something close to the pinnacle of political power in the world: being president of the United States. I see him getting the Republican nomination; hopes of a brokered convention are just fantasies. There have been deeply evil politicians and presidents. Richard Nixon comes to mind but at least he was trapped by a political system of checks and balances. It’s not clear if Trump becomes president whether the system still has the backbone to deal with someone like him. I’d like to think so, but I am skeptical.

Over the years this blog has been around, I’ve made something of a second career cataloguing these demagogues. Democrats are not entirely clean, with John Edwards leaping to mind. Both sides of the party can be pandered to and inflamed. Mostly though these demagogues have limited appeal. Some of the many I have blogged about include Bill O’Reilly and Glenn Beck. I have read enough history though to know that Donald Trump is not quite unprecedented. Early in our history we had a president arguably as bad as Trump: Andrew Jackson whose portrait mysteriously adorns our ten-dollar bill.

We’ve also had our share of bad presidents but who were not demagogues. Woodrow Wilson was a racist who purged blacks from the government. President Harding dropped his pants for more than one woman not his wife and got embroiled in the Teapot Dome oil scandal. Herbert Hoover and a top-heavy Republican congress ushered in the Great Depression. Lyndon Johnson made the Vietnam debacle much worse. And I’ve shown 12 years ago that Ronald Reagan was pretty much a disaster of a president. Then of course there is George W. Bush. Still with the possible exception of Jackson none of these presidents rise to Trump’s level. None had the mentality that the ends justified the means. Trump’s success makes him a singular danger to our democracy.

So sorry daughter, we are living the Chinese curse of living in interesting times. Polls suggest a Trump election win will be quite a stretch, but if anyone could pull it off Trump is demonstrating he has the skills and oratory to do it. Trump though is not unique, but simply the most articulate spokesman for the Republican brand. It’s a brand full of chest thumping, racism, classism and staking out unequivocal positions that have devolved into concerns about the size of Trump’s hands and penis. They are all doing it without qualification, except possibly John Kasich. These candidates will denounce Trump on the one hand but won’t take the next obvious step: saying they will not support him if he wins his party’s nomination.

This is because for all their claims of principle they really don’t have any. It’s not principle that drives them; it’s the lust for power. This puts them ever further on the extreme right as well as makes them back down from taking principled stands like saying they won’t support Trump if he wins their party’s nomination. They are all jockeying for power as best they can by keeping their options open. I was puzzling through Chris Christie’s endorsement of Donald Trump shortly after dropping out. Why was he doing this? The easy rationalization is that both are bullies and he identifies with a fellow bully. But the same can be said for most of the Republican candidates. I think Christie is hoping to be nominated as his running mate. I think he is further expecting that if Trump wins office he will eventually be impeached and removed, leaving him as president. It’s a tactic worthy of Frank Underwood; he was just the first to go there. While Christie may admire Trump for being a master bully, I think his real motivation is simply a lust for power.

The larger question is how do you undo something like this? It’s not like we are at the precipice. Lots of people are already jumping off the cliff into the political unknown. It’s time for the grownups not just to speak up but also to take real action. Mitt Romney says he won’t vote for Trump but did not suggest an alternative, which is hardly helpful. Establishment Republicans are trying to persuade voters in keystone states like Florida and Ohio to vote for someone else, but they appear too late to the game to change the dynamics. President Obama recently spoke out, but it was at a fundraiser. Changing the dynamics here though is pretty much impossible when the other party will refuse to even listen to you. Just for starters Republicans in Congress won’t even allow Obama’s budget director to present his budget, the first time this has ever been done. A Republican Senate also refuses to entertain a nominee for the Supreme Court.

We need an elder statesman with mojo and credibility to bring the parties together to tone down the rhetoric and is some marginal way change the conversation and up the civility factor. There is no one such person, unfortunately. Jimmy Carter comes to mind but Republicans would dismiss him.

We urgently need a national timeout. All these key muckrakers need to have a private conclave and hash this out. If I were President Obama I’d be on the phone with Mitt Romney. I’d be penciling in a date in a couple weeks at a private retreat like Camp David and use the power of shame (if it works) to bring all these blowhards together in one place to hash this out. This would include Republican and Democratic leadership in Congress and all the presidential candidates on both sides. It would also include chairs of the Democratic and Republican national committees. I’d include trained facilitators and psychologists to help ensure the meeting moves forward productively The topics would include: setting baselines for acceptable political behavior and setting up a process involving some compromise so that Congress and the President can work together in some minimal fashion through the election.

Would it work? The odds are against my proposal but someone needs to step forward and we need two brave people on both sides of the aisle. I don’t see any others who can play this role.

Sadly, nothing like this is likely to happen, but it needs to happen. Is there a grownup in the room?

 
The Thinker

Justice Scalia’s untimely departure

One week later and I’m finally back blogging. Mostly I was out of town attending my father’s memorial service and all the family events that go along with it. It was all quite a blur. While my family grieved, reconnected and moved forward, the world kept moving forward too, I just wasn’t paying much attention. In politics this included a Republican and Democratic debate (which events forced me to miss) and the sudden death of Justice Scalia on Saturday, which I did not miss.

We were winding down from family events at a friends’ house when the news of Scalia’s death was announced. Almost in the same breath everyone had moved past the death of a man and onto the many political implications of who would replace the conservative jurist. It was embarrassing on both sides. Within an hour Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY) announced the Senate would not take up the confirmation of an Obama nominee. A couple of hours later President Obama was saying nice things about Scalia while letting everyone know he was going to nominate a new justice anyhow. Scalia’s body had not even cooled!

And then the real craziness began. Candidates for president started chiming in not on Scalia’s career but on what they thought should be done about his replacement. CNN and all the news channels went into overdrive with mostly poorly informed opinions about what this transition means. Liberals cheered while conservatives started filling the moat with crocodiles and raising the drawbridge. In some ways this was everyone’s worst nightmare. The timing of Scalia’s death was disastrous. Even Democrats would have preferred that he finish the current year before expiring. As if we needed one more reason to heighten the importance of the coming election!

I’ve been sorting out all the opinions and analysis out there about what it all means. As a public service, I thought I’d distill it all down for you.

First, this is going to upset the Supreme Court applecart for the first time since Richard Nixon was president. For four decades the court has been balanced between liberals and conservatives, with decisions generally leaning toward the conservatives thanks to mostly Republican presidents. Scalia of course is perhaps the most prominent conservative on the court and certainly was its loudest one. Brass and opinionated with little interest in judicial decorum, he mouthed off all the time about stuff he should have saved for a memoir. Virtually anyone who replaces Scalia will by definition be less conservative than he is. The only chance Republicans have is if (a) a Republican president is elected in November, (b) he turns out to be very conservative and (c) the Senate does not switch to a Democratic majority again, which is at least a 50:50 probability. So it’s virtually certain that the balance is going to be tipped, at least in the more moderate direction, whether it happens soon or with a new president.

Second, not confirming a new justice will in many ways make things worse for Republicans. Scalia was a reliably conservative vote on the court, so with just eight members during this term decisions will break toward the liberal side. Tied decisions will either revert to the decision made by the appellate court or justices could decide to rehear the case at a later time. Since judges appointed by Democratic presidents control roughly two thirds of the appellate courts, most decisions will bend left minus Scalia’s vote. If the Senate approved another justice it would allow the possibility that at least some of these cases could bend toward the right. Another possible ripple: it may give Democrats extra incentive to turn out to vote, perhaps in larger numbers than Republicans, in which case it may enlarge expected electoral losses by Republicans. In short, by being unnecessarily obstructionist and dogmatic, Senate Republicans are effectively stomping on their own feet.

Third, there is nothing in the constitution that says the president may defer action simply because he is in his final year of office. President Obama is required to make a nomination. Not making a nomination would actually be grounds for his impeachment. The Constitution is quite clear in the Appointments Clause by using the word shall (which is legally binding); it’s a solemn duty he must perform. The Senate must approve or reject the nomination. Excessive delays by the Senate are potentially unconstitutional too. We could see a court case to determine if the Senate must vote on appointments within a reasonable period of time. So suggestions that Obama simply defer nominating anyone would be perilous politically and constitutionally.

Fourth, there is legal precedent for Obama to make a recess appointment for a temporary justice to see out his term. The Senate is currently out of session and a previous Supreme Court ruling stated that such appointments could be made if the Senate is out of session for three days or more. Justice William Brennan got a recess appointment this way from President Eisenhower; Brennan was subsequently confirmed. I don’t expect Obama to go this route but if Republicans are adamant that they won’t hold a vote until after he leaves office, this is one method that appears to be legal that he could use.

Fifth, Scalia’s death and the extreme reactions by Republicans to filling his seat point to the tenuous hold that Republicans have on Congress. It doesn’t seem that way, particularly with their commanding majority in the House. Their House majority is largely a result of gerrymandering following the 2010 census. However, America’s demographics are quickly changing in a more liberal direction. Not only have Republicans done little to address these facts, they’ve made their problem worse by doubling down on policies that inflame voters that might otherwise vote for them. My suspicion is that ten years from now we’ll look at Scalia’s death as the beginning of the end of Republican control of government.

 
The Thinker

Obama demonstrates he is the real grown up in the room

Our national government currently resembles a three-ring circus. Between carbon copy Republicans running for president on a platform of mostly hot air, pabulum from the so-called leaders of the U.S. congress and the weird rulings and opinions from our Supreme Court justices, a whole lot of nothing meaningful is happening in Washington at your expense.

There is thankfully one exception: we’re getting a lot of leadership from President Obama. And yesterday, the president tentatively scored a major win: a negotiated agreement with Iran over its nuclear weapons program, in concert with four other major powers that participated in the talks. The agreement reduces Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the next ten years and Iran gets release from the crippling sanctions against the country. This will be done through unfettered inspections of its nuclear facilities and sealed commitments to reduce its uranium stockpiles.

I breathed a huge sigh of relief when the agreement was announced but I was also grinning. In his first presidential campaign, Obama had promised change we could believe in. It’s been hard to deliver a lot of this change given the relentless obstruction in Congress, but this agreement should it be realized certainly will be change I can believe in. This is the kind of change I voted for, and it’s meaningful change.

While Republicans fall over themselves to deny global warming, restrict a woman’s right to an abortion and make life increasingly miserable for the poor and the wretched, at least Obama has kept his focus long term. While CEOs do conniptions to show higher quarterly profits, our president has ignored the rhetoric of the moment and concentrated on what we paid him for: real leadership. And boy did he deliver yesterday!

Consider what would happen if “Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” John McCain had been elected president instead of Barack Obama. It’s pretty clear what would have happened based on McCain’s own words then and over the last six and a half years. Negotiate with Iran? It would not have been an option. It would have been framed as negotiating with terrorists. It’s quite likely that instead we would now be hip deep in another long, ghastly and frighteningly expensive war with Iran. Bombs would be dropping. Our ships would be shelling Iran’s shores. Aircraft would be dropping bunker-busting bombs all over the country, and maybe outside of it. Our troops would be dying, and overstretched in the area, which is already rife with conflict. That region would be even more so with a major war in Iran and the Islamic State even more resurgent. Consider what would be giving up now if we were at war with Iran: support for the Iraqi government, and the Kurds and pretty much anyone else trying to contain the Islamic state, and that’s just for starters. Our attention on other threats in Asia and Africa would be largely nonexistent.

This new war, as awful as it would be, would be far more awful because it would set in motion a series of future wars. Rather than contain Iran’s nuclear might, it would unleash decades of future madness in that region. Iran, which already hates America, would find it hated us even more due to the war. It would be working that much harder to undermine our national security through its proxies. You don’t have to look far in the Middle East to see how the hate business propagates endlessly. Israel and Palestine are locked in an eternal war fought as lots of major skirmishes. Each action by Israel or proxies for the Palestinians simply set up the participants for the next one, and further inflames tensions, making it impossible for them to cool. There is no military solution to their problems, just as there is no military solution to the West’s conflict with Iran.

The difference is that unlike Israel’s relentless intransigence, the United States can affect real political change through diplomacy instead of war. Obama figured that out long before he was president. He realized that the most important thing was to stop the cycle of hate and paranoia, because this puts out the flames of war. He spoke openly to the Iranian people that change was possible. He said that Iran and the United States did not have to be eternal enemies. He said we could resolve our conflict through diplomacy, but only if both sides were earnest and passions could cool. To improve the odds he worked with an international coalition not just to maintain sanctions on Iran but also to work together to find a peaceful way to lift them through a comprehensive agreement. And amazingly with the help of two hard working secretaries of state (Hillary Clinton and John Kerry) and of course our international partners (which gave us credibility), they pulled off this agreement.

Of course there are no guarantees that Congress will approve this agreement. It will probably be rejected, but because it is not a treaty, Obama’s veto of their bill rejecting it probably means he will win. This is because Congress probably can’t muster two thirds majority in both chambers to overrule his veto. Of course it is fraught with lots of potential pitfalls. But it also significantly reduces Iran’s nuclear weapon making capability and brings Iran back into the international community. It eases tensions and allows time for Iran’s demographics to take hold. It is a country full of young people, and it’s likely as they age they will have much more liberal values than their current leaders. You can see this from the satellite dishes on pretty much every house of size in Iran today. Iranians are more than ready to embrace Western values. They are just waiting for the political climate to change.

You will hear the usual noise from the war hawks about why this agreement is actually a calamity and how we are selling out our values not to mention our national security. In reality, Obama is holding us to our values, showing that we are a nation that values peace and goodwill. This buys real national security because when people don’t have reason to hate you, something called real peace happens. Obama is showing that we can model what is best about our country to the rest of the world again, rather than assert what is worst about it. He is reminding us of a time in the late 1940s and early 1950s when this was the United States and we really were that shining city on the hill. We sponsored the United Nations. We rebuilt Europe. We built international coalitions to handle the Korean conflict. We fed much of the malnourished world. We were an awesome country back then.

To quote the late Hubert Humphrey, I’m as pleased as punch with our president. Obviously he is not a flawless president. I too have major concerns with some of his decisions as president. However, his focus on a long game and doing the intelligent thing rather than the emotional thing certainly garners not just my respect, but also my deep admiration and gratitude.

Thank you for being one of the few grown up leaders in our government, Mr. President.

 
The Thinker

Liz Warren for president?

Moveon.org members are convinced: Massachusetts’s senator Elizabeth Warren is their overwhelming pick for president in 2016. They want to convince her to run although so far Senator Warren is proving tone deaf. When prompted by NPR recently she didn’t say she would never run, but kept reiterating she is not running for president. Her groupies may take this as an encouraging sign. I won’t be reading too much into it.

Senator Warren is one of a number of boutique candidates or candidate possibilities of interest to various groups. Often the most interested ones are the potential candidates themselves. They are already out there preening and posturing, and that includes soon to be ex-governor Rick Perry of Texas who is hoping his new ugly black framed glasses will look presidential this time around. It also includes “Mr. Sweater-vest” and former anemic Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, but also quite clearly Jeb Bush and so many other Republicans in waiting that it’s hard to list them all.

On the Democratic side until recently there has been no one willing to challenge Hillary Clinton, should she announce her candidacy for president. Despite her public hedging, there is little suspense about if she will run, just when she will announce it. My former senator Jim Webb apparently wants to run, or is at least working on an exploratory committee, which is the first step. There is also the soon to be former governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley that is thinking maybe he should run, particularly if Hillary looks vulnerable or if by running he might be on her ticket. And then there are the boutique candidates who really have no chance but want to promote their issues. Vermont senator Bernie Sanders, who is actually a socialist and caucuses with the Democrats, is considering running to call attention to the problems of the middle class. Warren’s supporters, and there are many of them, want her to do the same thing.

Watching Warren speak is interesting. She is a compelling speaker. Unlike most politicians, she speaks from her heart. She is genuine and weirdly enough she actually cares passionately about her issues, which is mostly the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich and the oversized influence of Wall Street on our lives. Most recently she made the news criticizing the recent “cromnibus” bill that funds most of the federal government through fiscal year 2015, in particular the provisions slipped in to ease the ability of banks to invest in derivatives. Her mixture of authenticity, scholarship and passion is definitely unique at the moment, and it doesn’t hurt that she is a woman as well.

But Liz Warren for president? She seems to be smart enough to realize her own limitations, which speaks well of her. She is working hard to restore America’s middle class, but she is going up against institutional forces that are likely to defeat her. Still she keeps at it, and it is heartening to see her not lose hope in what seems like a lost cause. She makes most progressive Democrats feel downright tingly. She connects with us in a way that we haven’t felt since Barack Obama entered the national stage.

Liz Warren has many wonderful attributes, but she is no Barack Obama, at least not yet. Liz is focused like a laser on addressing the problems of the middle class. The problem with focus though is you tune out all the other stuff about governing. It’s not fair to say she is disinterested about things like defense spending, terrorism or race relations. She probably knows quite a bit about these things. She just chooses not to open her mouth much on them. That was not the case with Barack Obama. While he may not have had much experience in these areas, he certainly understood them and gave thoughtful, analytical and nuanced positions on all these issues. He looked and sounded like presidential material because someone who is going to be president should see the big picture. Rarely has our national chessboard been so complex. We need someone who has the political skills to handle the multifaceted, 24/7/365 aspects of being president.

Liz Warren simply hasn’t demonstrated this. Progressive Democrats’ hearts may skip a beat when she opens her mouth but that’s not a particularly good reason to nominate anyone for president. She is passionate and persistent, but was she to be president she would face most of the same issues President Obama has struggled with. She would likely be dealing with a Congress controlled by Republicans. To govern she would have to make deals, assuming anyone on the other side wanted to make a deal. Lately Republicans have been all about obstinacy. It’s all well and good to stand up for your values, but being president requires compromise. It means selectively sticking up for certain things and giving up on others. She makes noise in the Senate but so far she hasn’t done much to effectively cross the aisle, not that it’s an easy thing to do when your opposition basically won’t concede anything.

Liz is guilty of being popular, but being popular does not mean that someone is presidential material. I like Liz a lot. I expect in 2015 when my wife and I move to Massachusetts that she will be my senator, and I will be glad to call her my senator. But she is not yet presidential material. It seems that she understands this too, which speaks highly of her. So I don’t expect her to be a candidate, no matter what the members of MoveOn.org want, because she has too much common sense.

I’d rather see her move the needle where she can and continue to be a top fundraiser for Democratic candidates. I want her to be our chief cheerleader, because we will need plenty of enthusiasm from the rank and file to win in 2016 and maybe take back the Senate. Absent evidence I don’t yet see in her, I hope she won’t run for president. If you are one of her supporters, I hope you will see that she can be far more effective for our side right where she is.

 
The Thinker

Obama’s strategy is a pretty poor strategy

Dear President Obama,

Can we go back to a lack of strategy regarding the Islamic State? Of course you were ridiculed by much of the media (and naturally Republicans) when the Islamic State started beheading American (and now a British) journalists and you confessed the United States did not have a strategy. Now apparently we have one. I realize I am in a significant minority of Americans, most of whom overwhelmingly support us going to war with the Islamic State. But I’d really prefer a lack of a strategy compared with your current strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy the Islamic State.

It’s not that I object to the idea of getting rid of the Islamic State. It’s the methods that you are using that are unworkable. For the moment it involves a lot of American air power. Presumably dropping all these munitions is part of a “degrade” strategy. All I see is the tail wagging the dog. We are doing just what the Islamic State wants us to do.

It’s the same thing that Osama bin Laden wanted us to do after 9/11. He succeeded. It got our dander all up and before long we were invading Afghanistan and we compounded our mistake by also invading Iraq. Have we destroyed al Qaeda? Obviously not. Have we degraded it? Perhaps. Most obviously though we have not so much degraded it as fractured it. To cope, al Qaeda became a series of snakes rather than one snake. With no central leadership, it is now harder to kill. We’ve lobbed hundreds of cruise missiles at al Qaeda encampments in Yemen, Sudan, Pakistan and elsewhere. We even took out Osama bin Laden, an accomplishment for which you deserve praise. And yet despite hundreds of billions spent, and trillions in eventual costs, al Qaeda is very much alive. The Islamic State is basically an offshoot of al Qaeda. As far as al Qaeda is concerned, the Islamic State is too radical.

So apparently firepower alone, and even the presence of more than a hundred thousand U.S. troops in Iraq was not nearly enough to stop terrorism and sectarian violence. What our muscle does though is make us look like an Axis of Evil, fueling the recruitment of terrorists ready to fight and die for a holy mission, which is exactly what the Islamic State wants. Munitions can be replaced. They have the means to replace anything we blow up, and much of their money is actually coming from so-called friendly states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar. To grow and keep growing they need more recruits for the cause, and all the fighting is certainly doing that. Muslims across Europe and even here in the United States are going to join the mayhem, and plenty more in the immediate area are also anxious to wreak holy war. Had we not invaded Iraq it’s unlikely the Islamic State would even exist.

We invaded Iraq in order to stop non-existent collaboration between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. By turning it into a lawless country, we allowed al Qaeda to establish a real foothold in the place. Ten years later it resulted in the Islamic State, which we now want to beat into submission using the same tactics that failed to work in the past. This is an effective strategy? No, it’s the failure to learn from past mistakes. It is folly.

Mr. President, I understand the pressure you are getting. Americans are seeing these grisly videos on YouTube, so cleverly produced by the Islamic state. They are carefully designed to outrage us and push our buttons. It worked. Americans want action. I was certainly revolted by the beheading of two American journalists. My instinctive reaction was the same as most Americans: let’s show them who’s boss by dropping some bombs. An eye for an eye. When I thought about it logically though, I looked at how great it is working out for Israel. That nation does not have peace. It has indefinite and increasingly painful warfare punctured by months or perhaps years of a pseudo-peace. Degrading and destroying the Islamic State the way we plan to do it is simply setting us up for future complex and increasingly worsening games of whack-a-mole. In the long term this does not make us safer, or make the world a more peaceful place. It worsens, not helps, our national security.

Any civilized person is going to think that beheading anyone is beyond outrageous and should not be tolerated. It is, of course, evil. And two Americans so far have suffered this grisly fate. What really bugs us though is that it happened to Americans. We were far less concerned about when Saddam Hussein’s police were doing it. If I had my option, I’d much rather be beheaded than suffer the fate Iraqis routinely experienced under Saddam Hussein. His torturers routinely cut off limbs, made people endure acid baths and even boiled people alive in acid baths. Sometimes this was done in front of their families. We’re not talking about a couple of people; we are talking tens of thousands, and likely a lot more. Only they were Iraqis, not Americans. At least with a beheading, death comes quickly.

While we find such punishments abhorrent (well, except for the Dick Cheney’s of the world, who are quite comfortable with waterboarding), this is par for the course in the Middle East. Beheadings happen regularly in Saudi Arabia. Syria tortures. Iran tortures. The new government of Iraq tortures, mostly Sunnis because the Shi’ites are now in charge. What’s unusual is finding a government in that region that does not torture. Like Americans venturing into North Korea, Americans who travel to these countries in the Middle East have to have some reasonable expectation that they will suffer fates like these too.

We cannot install civilization in this area. We cannot put sufficient forces on the ground to control this region, as we proved in Iraq. For all the current calls for retribution from Americans today, they won’t support a long-term occupation of this area and we can’t afford it.

I realize you are under pressure to show some results. Americans want instant results. We cannot win this fight, at least not like this. This is not a problem that can be controlled. America must give up the fantasy that we can order the world to suit our prejudices and predispositions. Trying to wage this war on the ground through proxies, which is how you want to proceed, is a strategy with virtually no chance of success. It’s a hopelessly tangled mess that we cannot and should not sort out.

Mr. President, part of the art of leadership is to candidly acknowledge what is possible and what is not possible. This is not possible. You should tell us American this bluntly. Let’s do what we can do to make things less miserable for those affected. Let’s make life better for the refugees. But please don’t think that we can solve this problem. We can’t and attempting to do so will only make things worse for us in the long term.

You of all people should understand this.

Stop it. Change course now. Tell America you have rethought your strategy. Let it be.

 
The Thinker

Obama’s lack of a strategy so far is a pretty good strategy

Yikes! It’s almost the end of August and I haven’t written anything about politics this month! I thought retirement would give me all this extra time to blog, but so far it has not been the case. About half of the month has been spent on vacation, which I blogged about, and the other half of this first month of “retirement” has been acting as Mr. Handyman and general property manager as we stumble through the process of getting our house ready for sale.

Not that there isn’t a lot to talk about. President Obama tried to take a vacation on Martha’s Vineyard while events were (literally) exploding in Syria and Iraq, the Ukraine, Libya, the Gaza Strip and Ferguson, Missouri. Obama got bad press for going golfing right after making statements and for not being in Washington during all of this, as if a President is not trailing three hundred plus people with him on vacation to allow him to work remotely, or he couldn’t be back in the White House in an hour if needed. (Curious that these same people don’t criticize him for taking foreign trips, unless there is some domestic crisis underway.) Most lately, he is criticized for wearing a tan suit at a press conference.

All this is piffle of course. It’s probably not a good photo op to show the president swinging golf clubs after making serious statements about the Islamic State. Perhaps the most serious charge laid recently against the president is his self confessed lack of a strategy dealing with the Islamic State, which lately has been imitating our waterboarding during the occupation of Iraq, not to mention grisly beheading an American journalist.

While Obama supposedly dithers, most of the Republicans already have a strategy. Typical of the proposed strategies is one opined by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who wants us to bomb the Islamic State “back into the Stone Age”. This strategy is not surprising from a party that exercises power principally through bullying. If your weapon of choice is the club, it becomes your solution to everything.

Let’s rewind here. When we invaded Iraq, we exercised a “shock and awe” strategy that proved our mighty ability to scare people, destroyed their government, and resulted in a real al Qaeda in Iraq, which had no presence in the country prior to our invasion. Why did they rush in? Because we were there and because there was a power vacuum. Their presence helped energize groups like ISIS/ISIL. We could try to bomb the Islamic State into the Stone Age, but it’s kind of hard when they are using a lot of our leftover munitions and armored personnel carriers. Unless the quality of our munitions and equipment is more inferior than believed, this is probably not a great strategy. So naturally, according to Republicans anyhow, the way to get rid of the Islamic State is to do more of what failed us before!

The United States is not the only country in the region suffering from this cognitive dissonance. There is also Israel, which of course we provide with plenty of lethal munitions, mostly at our expense, which has been used to kill over two thousand Gazans in their latest war with Hamas, many of them innocent children. There now appears to be a permanent ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which left the political situation pretty much the same as after their previous war in 2009. One thing though has not changed: all that murder from the skies and from Israeli soldiers has simply fueled more hatred that will ensure more wars like this in the years ahead. Hamas is hardly wiped out and predictably both Hamas and Israel are claiming victories that did not in fact occur. Hamas was not wiped out because it is driven by an ideology that is compelling to many in that region. Being around to fight another day against a vastly superior military force is victory enough for Hamas.

There is no lasting peace possible through strength in our modern world, not that Republicans will ever understand this. Sane people of course are intimidated by the application of overwhelming force, but if there are enough people that put ideology over sanity, the conflict will continue. Probably ninety percent of Gazans would be happy if Hamas were overthrown, but it doesn’t matter if ten percent don’t and are willing to put their lives at risk to continue the conflict.

Bombing the Islamic State into the Stone Age may degrade its ability to wage war, but it will only fuel the mindset that will ensure future wars like this. Obama’s lack of a strategy is simply a timeout to figure out a strategy that might actually help solve the larger problem. The problem in a nutshell: how to cool the ideological fever that is causing the conflict in this region.

I suspect that Obama’s emerging strategy is a lot like mine. The main thing to understand is that most of the chaos in the Middle East is a result of our tinkering with the power structures that were already in place. Doing more of the same is unlikely to make things better but based on experience is almost guaranteed to make things worse, which it has. It fueled the breakup of Iraq and brought the Islamic State into existence.

It’s a bad chessboard for trying to make a move. In my humble opinion, the best strategy may be not quite benign neglect, but minimal involvement and using proxies where they exist, such as moderate forces battling in Syria. Which is kind of what we are already doing, albeit not to great effect so far. We can certainly work hard to cut off the source of funding for the Islamic State. We can try to keep their oil off the market, and we can try to influence states like Qatar that are helping to keep the state in business not to do so. It makes all the sense in the world to keep Americans far away from the Islamic State and to warn Americans who do go there that their lives are in jeopardy and their lives will not be ransomed.

Another exercise in feel good muscular diplomacy will have the same predictable consequences it had in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places. It was a strategy that worked in World War One and World War Two, because we were working with well-defined nation-states. Because this was effective, wars are now mainly waged through paramilitary proxies that are ideologically driven. They are much harder to win because the enemy is so diffuse. You can’t kill an idea, but you can sap its energy.

Winning is a generational game, and it begins by not emulating tactics that have proven disastrous in the past. We will win these wars probably 80% through diplomacy, 20% through force of arms, and through proxies of our own that we nurture and support. That sounds like a strategy that might actually work, but it will be hard to sell. There are no instant results but if anything is likely to actually eventually work, it will.

I hope our very intelligent president and I are on the same page, which I think we are. In a way, Obama is blessed with a term limit because he can do what is right without worrying about the political consequence. I hope he does.

 
The Thinker

Spock in charge

In case you haven’t noticed in the last five years, we seem to have a Vulcan in the Oval Office. Spock is in charge.

Obama as Mr. Spock

Obama as Mr. Spock

Oh, I know what some of you are thinking: we have an atheist/Muslim, Kenyan-born unnatural American in the White House instead. All that stuff about Barack Obama being born in Hawaii is faked, and even if it isn’t, Hawaii was barely a state in 1961, so he’s still not a naturally born American, and thus is not qualified to be president! The good news is that if Obama really is Mr. Spock, well, then we do have an imposter for a president, since anyone with knowledge of Star Trek canon knows that Spock is a Vulcan from the planet Vulcan.

Not so fast! There is the minor matter of Spock’s mother Amanda, who happened to be human, which means Spock is a product of a mixed-species marriage. Curiously, Obama is a product of a mixed-race marriage. It’s unclear from Star Trek canon whether Spock’s mother Amanda was born in the United States, and it’s also very unclear whether in the 23rd century world of Star Trek there is a United States. It sort of sounded like in Gene Roddenberry’s imagination we had evolved past nation-states. However, Spock’s mother Amanda was white and spoke English with a flawless American accent. If she had a son on Vulcan and was a member of a 23rd century United States, why, Spock would be no less eligible for the presidency than Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) is for being born in Calgary, Canada to American parents. Hmm.

So I am going with this assumption, because President Obama is so much in mind and temperament like a Vulcan in general, but Spock in particular, that I figure Spock is real. He figured out a way to transport himself back to our time, got a little plastic surgery on his ears and otherwise inserted himself seamlessly into our national consciousness around 2004 when Obama made that famous speech at the Democratic National Convention. I mean, Obama is a dead ringer for Spock anyhow: tall, thin, highly logical and low key. I don’t know where the Barack Obama before that speech is, but I figure he is deep in a holding cell somewhere out of the way, probably in Guantanamo. Maybe he will be released after Spock finishes his term in 2017.

Some rabid Christians believe in the antichrist, and many suggest that Obama is the antichrist. If the opposite of religious is secular, then Obama seems to qualify. It is true that he belonged to a predominantly black church in Chicago, but since assuming the presidency he and church have been strangers at best. He had not joined any of the local churches. His attendance is sporadic at best. Vulcans don’t need no stinkin’ churches. They are entirely logical and that certainly describes our president.

Obama, more than any president I can recall, is a relentlessly pragmatic politician, which means that he is driven by logic, not emotion, just like a Vulcan. It is borne out in so many ways, but most importantly to Americans perhaps in Obamacare. It was an imperfect law at best but the main thing was that it could get through Congress, although it just barely made it out of Congress. When it arrived it quickly showed imperfections. However, its imperfections were not as important as the fact that Obama and Democrats in Congress had at least moved this political football down the field, an accomplishment that eluded many past presidents and congresses. Obamacare was certainly not the best health care legislation, but it was doable. It was the logical choice as opposed to doing what so many others had done: nothing.

I find Obama/Spock’s pragmatism welcome. I see it not just in the Affordable Care Act, but in lots of other actions Obama/Spock has taken. The Iraq and Afghanistan Wars were good examples. Mr. Spock would look at these wars and say, “There is no way to win these wars. We need to get out quietly, set up some fig leaf governments that suggest that we care about the inevitable mess we’ll leave behind, but basically just go. We can’t afford them anymore.” And so we did. For the most part, even the Republicans who started these wars aren’t complaining. They have moved on to other issues that excite their base, like cutting spending in general.

The Hindus recognize the god Shiva, whose job is basically to destroy things. This is because life is about change. If it didn’t change, it wouldn’t be life. Curiously, Republicans who claim to not want things to change seem to be channeling Shiva, eager to destroy pretty much all the social legislation of the 20th century. Obama/Spock seems to be trying to cope with change, to build on what has worked in the past to make for a better tomorrow, making him in some ways conservative. The Affordable Care Act demonstrates this principle at work: build a health care system on top of our existing private health insurance market to minimize the shock of change. It’s highly logical in the context of where we are today, which is why Obama/Spock supported it.

Obama himself has repeatedly spoken about his intent on playing a “long game”. He tries to ignore the ups and downs of the moment and keep his eye on the far end of the field where the goal line is. Whatever it takes to move that ball down the field is fine with him. As quarterback though Obama prefers to rush instead of pass. He may start out with a pass, as he did with the Affordable Care Act, but once it proved politically impossible to get a single payer system through Congress he found it less risky to rush instead. He got his first down, which was the Affordable Care Act. Some other quarterback will get to the goal line: a single payer system. Obamacare makes this conversation possible in the future. Without it, it could not happen at all.

Obama is obviously not a perfect president, so the Spock analogy is imperfect as well. But I find his relentless pragmatism quite refreshing. At times it gets him in trouble, such as in national security matters with electronic eavesdropping and the use of drones to kill terrorists. Spock though would fearlessly make these choices. “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one,” he has said in various TV shows and movies. Disconnects like these can happen when you elect left-brain presidents. What is logical is not always what makes the most political sense, and it can come back and bite you from time to time. Overall though, I prefer a left-brain president to a right-brain one.

We face terrible problems from overpopulation to climate change. No Messiah is going to come down from the skies to solve these for us. We made this mess, and only we can clean it up. We need clear thinkers and people of practical action to pull it off, if we can pull it off at all. The odds are very long.

So I for one am glad that Spock is in charge.

 
The Thinker

Republicans can’t kill Obamacare

One of the ironies of the Affordable Care Act is that Republicans were the ones to derisively name it “Obamacare”. So when it works, as it is going to, President Obama is going to get all the credit. This will make the Republicans look particularly stupid, not that they need a whole lot of help looking stupid lately. It might kill them as a party.

Perhaps it is the fear that it actually will work which is having them go into overdrive with desperate, last minute attempts to make it fail by convincing people not to enroll. They are doing so by refusing to set up state health exchanges but more recently by placing burdensome state regulations on Obamacare “navigators” (people paid to promote the insurance with uninsured communities) that effectively keep them from “navigating”. These tactics likely won’t work and worse are unconstitutional because of the supremacy clause to the U.S. constitution, not to mention the right of free association. Their hope is that by throwing sand into its engines before the courts tell the states their laws are invalid that it will cause the program overall to fail.

Good luck with that Republicans, because it won’t work. Granted, there may be some fits and starts to get the Affordable Care Act fully in gear. Whether or not navigators promote the law or not, it’s a straightforward matter for anyone who wants to get health insurance to acquire it: just get on line and sign up! On the national or state health exchange they can sign up for health insurance regardless of preconditions. If they don’t make a lot of money the government will subsidize some portion of their premiums.

The only ones to truly get screwed by Obamacare will be the working poor in red states, at least those red states like Texas which won’t accept Medicaid subsidies to expand the insurance pool. This is only possible, of course, due to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year that gave states the right to opt out of this part of the law. Now that decision definitely threw some sand into the Obamacare engine, but it was not fatal. It just meant that the poor, as usual, would continue to get screwed over in many red states. That will change with time.

So many ironies! It turns out that red states are essentially screwing themselves. By turning away free money to pay the medical expenses of their poorest citizens, these people will simply clog emergency rooms for costly “free” health care. This unofficial tax will be added to the price of health care services for the insured of these states, making their premiums proportionately higher than in states where Obamacare goes into full effect. This, in effect, makes blue states more desirable places to live because there is less health care cost shifting going on: health care expenses become more predictable. “Live free or die,” is the state motto of New Hampshire and by inference much of red America. But of course “freedom is not free”, as states like Texas will discover to their sorrow. The only interesting part of this exercise is how long they will hold out before they realize the futility of their own pigheaded stubbornness. There will be a whole lot of money that could have been used to build bridges and fund schools that will be needlessly squirreled away into higher health care costs instead.

This is because the whole point of insurance is to spread the risks, and thus the costs, lowering costs for everyone and thereby providing services that would otherwise be unaffordable. I don’t expect my house to burn down this year, so in the eyes of red America I am probably wasting money sending $600 a year or so to USAA. Essentially I am giving my money to someone else who will use it to rebuild their house when they have a fire. Of course should I have a fire, I’m out $600 in premiums and likely some costly but not catastrophic deductibles. But I am not left to rebuild my house with money from my savings account or using some loan that is based on my creditworthiness. $600 seems amazingly cheap for this investment of $500,000 or so. Essentially I pay .12 cents per dollar of the house’s value so I don’t have to pay to rebuild it in the event of catastrophe.

The same idea works with health care costs, of course. Only a very stupid wage earner when they measure their potential financial shock without health insurance will pass it up if they can possibly afford it. And with subsidies, they will be able to afford it, well, unless they make so little they count as working poor. If the states won’t take the federal money to insure these people then these low-wage workers will get screwed if they develop a costly condition. Many of them will die prematurely, but most will linger in pain and in poverty while racking up huge hospital bills that they cannot pay, but whose costs will simply be passed on to those who can: the insured.

Anyone who can possibly afford insurance is going to want to get it, and if they think they cannot they will find the cost of dodging it will increase every year with fines collected on their federal income taxes. At some point they will say, “If I am going to spend this much money not to be insured, maybe I should just be insured.” For now, these red states are hoping that ignorance will kill Obamacare. Keep the cheap to insure out of the market and it raises premium costs for the rest. In short they are betting on ignorance, hence their obsession with keeping “navigators” from navigating. It may work for a short while, but not forever, and if it works it will be locally, not nationally. Eventually some peer is going to tell them that they are insured now and it only costs X dollars and they are being subsidized with Y dollars of free money. It’s like a 401K employer match. Free money will get their attention, so let’s hope those navigating the navigators tell them to pitch it like this.

Despite attempts by some states to “overturn” Obamacare, it cannot be overturned by a state’s fiat. It is a done deal, a law largely upheld by the Supreme Court. It can only be repealed through an act of Congress signed into law by the president, or by a Congress that overrides the president’s veto.

It’s just like that scene from the movie Lincoln when, after the passage of the 13th amendment Lincoln meets with the vice president of the Confederacy who is making peace overtures. “Slavery,” President Lincoln informs him, “is done. Finished.” Check and mate! The Affordable Care Act is finished too. It can’t be overturned because it wasn’t overturned. Certain red states will screw themselves for a while as they try to make it not work in their states, but it won’t work nationally. Obamacare is done. It is potentially possible to repeal it, but it won’t happen without a Republican House, Senate and White House, and only if there are sixty or more Republican senators. In reality, at this point it can only be amended, and by amending it, it will only be strengthened, not weakened.

Obama may screw up his legacy by sending missiles into Syria to avenge the use of chemical weapons by its government. But he won’t screw it up through Obamacare. Ten years from now most people even in red states will be scratching their heads wondering why they opposed it in the first place. They probably won’t like paying their health insurance premiums and copays too much. I don’t like paying mine either. But I do like knowing one costly illness won’t wipe me out financially. So will millions of Americans simply trying to reach old age in a state resembling solvency.

Perhaps the most ironic part of Obamacare is that Obama will get credit for something he largely did not contribute to. He basically said he was for the idea of national health insurance but left the details to Congress. The Affordable Care Act was what emerged. Republicans named it “Obamacare” to tar it to President Obama, who they obviously loathe, and the frame stuck. Even the president now calls it Obamacare. It will be seen as the major accomplishment of his term of office. At least President Franklin D. Roosevelt truly instigated the New Deal. Obama, the man Republicans love to hate, will be gratefully remembered for Obamacare in the generations to come. He will wear laurels placed on his head by Republicans, who thought they were putting on a crown of thorns.

The real credit for the legislation though should go to the Democrats who controlled Congress at the time. Senator Harry Reid and Speaker Nancy Pelosi should be wearing those laurels, but also the sixty Democratic senators who, as a block, held themselves accountable when push came to shove and overcame cloture in the Senate. It was an improbable act of great bravery. Sadly, their contributions and these moments will be largely footnotes.

 
The Thinker

Obama is losing his Democratic moorings

Like many liberals, I am going through a painful disillusionment phase with Barack Obama. I am disheartened and saddened by his approach to governing since his reelection. I fear he is setting Democrats up for failure in 2014.

If there is one thing that unites Democrats it is a passion for the needs of the middle class and the poor. Since his reelection Barack Obama is showing signs that he is putting some nebulous legacy and quest to “get things done no matter what the odds” ahead of the best interests of the American people.

The most painful aspect has been Obama’s repeated declarations, most explicitly in his FY2014 budget, that he is prepared to scale back social security cost of living adjustments and increase Medicare payments in order to balance the budget. He says this will only happen if Republicans agree as part of a grand bargain to also raise taxes elsewhere.

Obama is way too smart a politician to not realize that social security is not contributing to the deficit. Indeed in most years it diminishes the deficit by putting its surpluses into the treasury. This proposed means of diminishing social security benefits is through a mechanism called “chained CPI” (consumer price index). Basically it would reduce inflation protections built into social security, on the assumption that people will reduce spending patterns when prices rise, for example going with ground beef instead of steaks. However, the elderly spend a disproportionate amount of their income on health care expenses, which has proven resistant to the “ground beef for steak” approach. Regardless, this would still amount to a cut in income generally compared with inflation for people who can least afford to take the hit. This means they will endure a reduction of standard of living, which is already pretty poor for many social security beneficiaries without pensions or high valued 401Ks. Worse, it would do nothing to control the deficit. Obama appears to be willing to balance the budget on the backs of those least able to afford it, and who contributed to their social security over the years based on certain assumptions which may well go by the wayside. It’s unfair and it is back stabbing.

As for Medicare, the president is proposing means testing, essentially requiring those at somewhat higher income levels to contribute more in the way of deductibles and copays when we use Medicare. There is no question that Medicare is a growing entitlement and there is enormous waste in the system. I am all for removing the waste in the system, which can be done by moving it from a fee-for-service model to an outcome-based payment model. As a driver of medical inflation, Medicare is a laggard not a leader, with significantly lower costs and inflation per enrollee than private health insurance. As for means testing, it is unfair because those who earn more have contributed more of their income over the years toward Medicare, effectively subsidizing the care for those at lower income levels. The tax is 1.45% of your income. Someone making $20,000 pays $290 a year in Medicare taxes. Someone at my income level pays closer to $1900 a year in Medicare taxes. The result of this proposed change would be to charge people like me more for the same benefits when we claim them after having already paid more by contributing more to the system during our working lives. It’s sort of like paying an income tax twice. It is fundamentally unfair.

To add insult to injury, yesterday the president signed into law changes to the STOCK act that essentially undid the work of the last Congress to provide better visibility into stocks owned by members of Congress and the Administration. This was a no-brainer for a supposedly progressive president: veto it.

Meanwhile, the former organization Obama for American has morphed into Organizing for Action, and the organization has been petitioning people like me to contribute to it, supposedly to help promote progressive causes. What is progressive about cutting social security benefits for people in a solvent system? Why would I contribute to an organization that works for a president who wants to do the exact opposite of what Vice President Joe Biden promised in the last campaign: not to cut social security benefits, not even by one dime? How do I get excited about sending them money when they want people to contribute more toward Medicare instead of removing the waste in the system?

The worst part is this could easily set up a repeat of the disastrous 2010 election, which brought in Tea Party members that have largely obstructed work from getting done. What drives people to the polls is motivation. Seniors, already disinclined to vote for Democrats, will be even gladder to vote for Republicans who promise not to cut their social security benefits, as even Paul Ryan has pledged. How do you excite the Democratic base to turn out when they are being asked to enthusiastically endorse an agenda that further stiffs it to the working class and seems more a product of Republican thinking than Democratic thinking?

To say the least all of this is disappointing, which amounts to leaving us Democrats dispirited, which gives us little incentive to vote or to get further engaged in politics, which is supposedly the whole purpose of Organizing for Action. But OFA is really about promoting the president’s agenda, not the people’s agenda. They no longer align.

I will support and vote for true Democrats who will fight for the working class, who will fight to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, including corporations that pay increasing fewer taxes every year. Once these under taxed groups have paid their taxes, then I will consider tax increases on the working class. I will not vote for Republican-lite candidates.

I hope Obama wakes up because he is making a fatal mistake not just to his legacy, but to his agenda and to the needs of Americans. The compromise he is chasing simply will not happen with the current Congress, which is good, because Republicans in Congress will put lower spending ahead of deficit reduction, as they have shown time and again. However, there is no reason to move our goalpost first when they won’t move their post at all. The mere act of moving proves not statesmanship but cowardice because it will show conciliation without affect. It also drains energy from progressives and makes us feel all our energy was for naught.

Democrats would be wise to estrange themselves from Obama and OFA. I know I am until he asks for contrition and puts the American people ahead of the concerns of the rich.

 

Switch to our mobile site