Morning Fog

Pity Us Our Traffic

It seems that at least once a month in Washington DC (and presumably also in other major metropolitan areas) we can read about the "annual report" of one or another of the institutions that for some reason take it upon themselves to measure traffic.

Although the latest such report claims the DC area has actually seen some improvement in the amount of time we sit in traffic tie-ups, we remain high on the list.  According to this report we spend about 45 hours "wasted" in traffic each year.  "Wasted" is not defined but appears to mean time sitting without moving. 

Reality check:  If we break that down, it comes to less than an hour a week, or only about 12 minutes a day in the typical five-day work week.   Is that really cause for whining, wailing, and gnashing of teeth?   How long should it take us to get to work or other destinations?  Until we get StarTrek intergalactic people-transporters, is 12 minutes [possibly 6 minutes each way] such a big deal? 

If it is, let's blame ourselves, for all our one-passenger vehicles, and our weird inclination to decide where to live without factoring in transporation costs.   And then go worry about something really important, like the fact gasoline may have gone up a penny this week.

We are a car-centered society; the price we pay, evidently, is to dwell endlessly on these rather petty concerns.

The U.S. Department Of Peace

Have you ever heard of the Department of Peace?  Neither had I.  That's probably because it doesn't exist, and because the concept is an idea dreamed up by that inveterate advocate of extreme liberal causes, Dennis Kucinich. 

Kucinich, a long-time Congressman from Ohio, lost his primary this year and was (he said) even contemplating running for a seat in another state.  Now he has abandoned that idea, and he and maybe a handful of others are lamenting that the "department of peace" may never become reality.

That's a blessing, really.  It's a kooky idea.  And in fact we already have a Department of Peace.  It's called the Department of State, and the traditional aim of diplomacy is to avoid war.  No, we don't need Department proliferation.  I suspect we could use a few fewer Departments.

One that looks suspect to me, at first glance, is the new Department of Homeland Security.  We already had a cabinet department for that function, too.  That would be the Department of Defense.  What, really, is defense other than protection of the homeland?  Over the years, though, Defense came to have an almost excusively foreign-war focus; domestic security became the stepchild, with very little attention except from scattered agencies (Coast Guard, Customs, Immigration and such), so it was not unreasonable to revamp things to make sure somebody was doing the things that the nation's founders must have supposed the Department of Defense would do.

We should complete the task by renaming DoD, returning it to its pre-WWII status as the Department of War.  It's a fairer description.

Voting Rights Hypocrisy

Yesterday I suggested the U.S. may be in danger of becoming a plutocracy, with the help of the Roberts Supreme Court.

But that's not the only way in which the Court and the ultra-conservative right are waging war on "one man, one vote."  Case in point, the 1964 Voting Rights Act - specifically, its requirement that the federal Department of Justice OK changes in voting laws in any states that had a history of racial voter discrimination in the past.  Those states, mostly in the old south, chafe under the restrictions and are pushing to have them repealed.  They argue that racism is a thing of the past and they've cleaned up their act.

So far courts have defended, and Congress has extended, the VRA requirement, but now it's rumored that Roberts may want to reach out and "fix" this continued requirement. 

Personally, I think the idea that racism is dead is pure fiction.  The election of an African-American President is a great step, but it's not the final one.  But leaving aside that larger issue, let's look around and see if we can see evidence of these states' new, improved attitudes about race.  

Oh, gee, here's one!  On the same day as the above report, other news reminds us that quite a few states are pushing and passing new, stricter voter identification laws.  Coincidentally, nearly all these states have Republican governors or assemblies, and many are the same ones that are under Voting Act restrictions.  Also coincidentally I'm sure, the voters who would be more likely denied access to the polls by these new regulations would be in demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic (e.g. African-Americans, among others).

Certainly it's possible to argue that it's a neater, more professional system if everybody is required to show up at the polls with an ID.  Yet current ID policy stems from a valid interest in ensuring that everyone can exercise his/her vote with the fewest bureaucratic obstacles.  Further, no state reports any severe problem with voter fraud.  So in a situation where there is no real problem, the "solution" is to increase restrictions imposed by government?  (And you thought Republicans were for smaller government!)

There's no way to make sense of the rash of voter ID laws except by brushing away the false justification (fear of voter fraud) and recognizing them for what they are:  They are (mostly, with one or two exceptions) political strategems aimed at improving Republican chances at the polls.  Whether they succeed in doing so is uncertain, but one thing is definite:   They will work to the detriment of minority voters. 

Roberts, in slavering over the chance to fix the VRA, must have overlooked this very clear example of lingering discriminatory attitudes.  He will most likely continue to do so.

Plutocracy

It looks to be time to dust off that fine old word "plutocracy" (government of the wealthy) because you don't have to be a pessimist, reading today's news, to get the distinct impression that's what we're headed toward.

Oh, sure, I realize that money has always spoken loudly in the U.S., and those who have it have traditionally had more than their share of real power.  Now, however, the power of the vote may be in danger of being ceded to the rich as well.

First we have the news that conservative PACs are outspending liberal ones 4 to 1 (yes, Virginia, more fat cats ARE Republicans), and are making predictable progress in getting the rightest-winged candidates selected in primaries.  Then, there's the Roberts court's predilection for dabbling in politics in an anti-democratic way, after choosing in Gore v. Bush the candidate with fewer popular votes; utterly convinced as they are (as as Mitt Romney is) that corporations are people, and fresh from deciding to make "money talks" the slogan for future elections (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).  Hey, "one man one vote" was SO yesterday!

Here's an idea:  Why don't we just grant corporations the right to vote?  All we need is a fair formula:  for example, a corporation with a billion bucks in sales could cast a million votes (they'll spend a lot of time in the voting booth, but ...).   After all, it's the next step.  It would cut out the middleman (the puny individual voter) and yield the same result.  All we need is one big business to gin up a case that would provide the right pretext.  No way the current court would reject this idea!

Then there would be no need to squander millions trying to persuade or hoodwink voters (after all, even with all the money in the world, there's always that gnawing anxiety that voters may do the wrong thing* anyway).  The job could be done directly.  And instead, the plutocrats could spend that same money more wisely, like for example, funding the defense budget.  They could have naming rights!  We could have the Exxon-Mobil Army, the Facebook Navy, on down to the Hershey's and Roto-Rooter Divisions. 

* Not that I mean to be pessimistic, or anything.  Actually we should keep in mind this one little spoiler factor - "doing the wrong thing" - PACs may gain fringe candidates the chance to run in primaries, but there's nothing to demonstrate they can really push those candidates over the finish line.  The people have more sense.  Or if they don't, maybe they deserve the coming disenfranchisement. 

Strange Bedfellows

I'm intrigued that George Romney is making admiring noises about Bill Clinton in his campaign speeches now.  The guy whose arch-conservative credentials were already dubious in the eyes of arch-conservatives, now seeking to score points against Obama by contrasting him to the "good" Clinton?  The Republican drawing favorable lessons from a Democrat?   

The irony of it!   Not too many Republicans had positive things to say about Clinton when he was in office; in fact that's when the GOP campaign of absolute opposition got its start. We remember that Obama, in his campaign four years ago, opined that Reagan wasn't such a bad fellow.  But Obama also had positive Democratic Party models (like Clinton) to refer back to. 

For obvious reasons, Romney isn't going to be reminding us of his party's most recent President.  No way!  It seems a dangerous thing, to court Republicans by reference to what a Democrat did.   I suppose the tactic is aimed primarily at independent voters.  And Romney might glean a few votes from those who don't really recall which party Clinton represented...

Religion And Academic Freedom

The local DC area Roman Catholic Archbishop, Donald Wuerl, has objected to an invitation extended by Georgetown University (a Catholic school) to Health and Human Services Secretary Sebelius to speak at the University's upcoming graduation.  Wuerl is p.o.'d, I suppose, because Sebelius's Department (not she personally, as Wuerl asserts) ginned up the effort to induce religious-run secular institutions such as universities to offer their non-religious employees the same health care other Americans are entitled to, and not to duck paying for it. 

Wuerl's attempt to inject religion here may make some want to huerl.  It's wrong on so many counts:

If he were to succeed in getting Sebelius banned from speaking, he would just be highlighting the oxymoron that is implied by using "religious-affiliated" and "university" in juxtaposition.  We have religious freedom; we also have academic freedom.  Certainly any university is free to decide whom to invite to speak, but in the interests of the latter freedom, I'd suggest university Presidents they have the right and the duty to do so independently of clerical bullying.

Simlarly, the Archbishop's attack on the HHS Secretary implies that he believes Sebelius, whatever her personal religious beliefs, should put religion before her secular duty as an official of the U.S. government.  Besides flouting church-state separation (see below), this approach ought to raise questions in many people's minds about the advisability of placing anyone with strong religious affiliation in a decision-making position in government. Not, certainly, if religious leaders believe such persons should follow their bidding rather than the people's.

Finally, Wuerl's objection manifestly stems from political rather than religious grounds.  It seems many churchmen are in favor of the separation of church and state when the state is precluded from taking steps that impact the church; but against it when the church feels the need to meddle in political and social issues.   I suspect even God realizes that you can't have it both ways.

Fortunately, I'm quite certain that both Sebelius and Georgetown University President John Digioia know their professional responsibilities well enough to ignore petty carping from the religious sidelines.

Filibuster - Constitutional?

Probably the whole question of the filibuster is a topic only a political scientist could warm to, yet the practice does have a huge bearing on what happens politically in the U.S., often being used to delay or derail controversial legislation. 

Ezra Klein's blog post on the topic today told me some history I didn't know, including that the practice originated after a seemingly innocuous and little-used provision in the Senate rules was eliminated in a simplification effort.  The removal of the so-called "previous question" provision unwittingly left the door open to the filibuster, much as the connection of the upper Mississippi River via canals through Illinois has allowed the Asian carp to spread north and endanger the Great Lakes.

Is it possible, as Klein's source suggests, that the filibuster might be considered by the Supreme Court and declared unconstitional? 

It seems highly unlikely to me.  Even if the Supreme Court ever agreed to consider the issue (doubtful), the filibuster arose in Senate rules rather than in the Constitution; does the Court's developed mandate for the review of legislation really apply to procedural rulemaking?  Moreover, the mere fact that the filibuster developed five decades after the Constitution hardly seems sufficient ground to claim that it is unconstitutional.  

Still, one can hope.  As with a number of other Senate procedural rules, a bit of reform could go a long way to making government more relevant and effective. 

 

 

Obama's Evolution

President Obama told us recently that his views on gay/lesbian rights have evolved to the point where he believes "personally" that they should have the right to marry.  This revelation may be late in coming, and it may do little more than acknowledge a trend and its inevitable outcome, but the LGBT community has given him some credit (and some political donations) for the political risk he runs in outing this view.

IS there a political risk?  I'd argue that it's very small at this point.  Personally, I believe the Obama campaign, and/or the President personally, have recognized that they can bolster their standing with a significant element of the "base" constituency without really harming themselves with the right-wing voters.  Especially when he continues to say that actual legislation on the subject is a matter for the states. There could be some concern about African-American voters, yet early indications are many accept the President's pronouncement with relative equanimity. 

On the other hand, conservatives who oppose gay marriage undoubtedly already "know" that Obama has a secret plan to push through all sorts of pro-LGBT legislation (just as they "know" he's a Muslim, a socialist, and wasn't born in the U.S.).  He has little to lose with this group. 

In between, however, is a great mass of voters who may not deeply care about these issues, but who would probably say when asked that it's a matter of fairness and marriage should be available to all.  These are also the people who will see that the President's personal view does not necessarily translate into a flurry of legislative proposals.  With this group, I suspect the Obama position sounds a lot more reasonable and human than his opponents'. 

This attitude on the part of the "typical" voter or political independent could be the basis of a cleverly conceived political trap in Obama's recent statement.  Romney appears to have recognized this by not making a big deal of Obama's announcement.  Others have not been so circumspect.  Firebrand conservatives gleefully plan to "make this a major campaign issue."    If they do, it's quite possible they'll turn off more voters than they turn on with yet another example of their extremist, outside-the-mainstream thinking.

In the long run there may be more risk for Republicans than for Democrats in the President's attitudinal "evolution.'

It's interesting to observe Romney's own evolution  (or should I say, how his views were intelligently designed?) on this subject.  See the excellent chart comparing the two candidates, and note that this is another matter on which Romney has flip-flopped (though Obama has also).

 

War Between The States - New Mexico and Indiana?

Over the weekend, New Mexico Senator Jeff Bingaman launched a tirade against another state ... Indiana!   I say tirade, because it seemed so extremely unusual for a Senator from one state to single out a different state by name for criticism. 

The gist of the article was that Indiana (like many other states recently) has turned the operation of parts of its toll roads, including some U.S. Interstates, to a private concern.  Bingaman said Indiana was still collecting federal funds intended for the maintenance of the interstate system, but argued such payments should be stopped for roads being operated for profit by a private contractor.  Makes sense to me!

Today, not surprisingly, the other shoe dropped.  Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels (Republican) responded rather heatedly to Bingaman's charges, suggesting the latter had his facts wrong, his analysis wrong, and maybe even his underwear on wrong. 

(I note that although the Governor's reply is long, he doesn't really deal directly with the chief point Bingaman makes, which is that taxpayers all across the country should not be paying money to repair roads in Indiana if a private company has been contracted to do that and is collecting tolls.)  

In Dixie, many people still call our Civil War the "War Between the States" (actually, the ones with the aluminum hats still like to call it the "War of Northern Aggression").  Is it possible we'll have a new "war between the states," even though the two states in question aren't in the south, and are not adjacent?  It's all very strange.

But as you might suspect, it's only politics -- the product of our continuing logjam in Congress.  In play is the federal transportation bill.  An article by another Senator, Bob Corker (Republican - Tennessee), back in March, sketches the outlines of the problem, i.e. that Republicans in particular are insisting on a "pay-as-we-go" plan for financing roads and other infrastructure, without any new taxes.  If you care to read Corker's item, you'll probably hear, as I did, a couple of words screaming at you from between the lines:  "gas tax." 

Yes, increasing the gas tax is an obvious answer, but Corker, Daniels, and their their GOP brothers generally ignore that because they have sold their souls and their independence of thought to Grover Norquist, the éminence grise/modern-day Rasputin of Anti-Tax Rabidity.  

The Purple Ring: Shifty Suburbs

The Washington Post of May 9 carries a fascinating demographic snapshot of "swing" counties around the country that may play a key role in the November elections.  It is no secret that Democratic political strength tends to be more-concentrated in urban environments, while less-densely populated regions tend to vote Republican in larger numbers.  In between the "blue" city cores/close-in suburbs and the "red" wider-open spaces are the farther-out, more recently urbanizing suburbs, in many cases like "purple" halos around many of our major cities.

Where local interests used to be largely regional, they now seem increasingly to be social.  Even humble Morning Fog has broached this idea before.  So it's not surprising to suggest that voters in central Washington DC and downtown Los Angeles may have more in common (at least sometimes) than do those in, say, Plains, Georgia and central Atlanta Georgia. 

But it's not, as political extremists like to suggest, that urban voters are looking for a handout, or that rural voters are backward.  It's just that the two constituencies have very different issues to deal with.  For example, on the matter of guns, or gun "control" if you prefer, individuals' arsenal of weaponry presents very different types of social issues in big cities than in smaller ones or in the countryside. 

Until we all begin to recognize this, we'll likely continue to divide ourselves needlessly.  State and local rights may be the answer, but federal lawmaking needs to provide an umbrella under which all practical solutions can exist.  Understanding of different "ways" will be come even more essential because our government structure sets up an automatic, and increasingly artificial, division between localities (whose strength is in the House) and states (whose strength lies in the Senate).  It's not about states any more; nearly all our states have both urban concentrations AND suburban/rural areas.