National Politics

Glenn Greenwald, writing in Salon.com, has published a thorough piece about the vapid and nauseating political season we’re now enduring as reported by an establishment media system that has immeasurably lowered public discourse in recent decades.

The breathless, horserace type of media reporting we now endure is more focused on Newt Gingrich’s tears for his mother or Mitt Romney’s dog than the reality of our eroding civil liberties or the increasing wealth disparity between the rich and everyone else, whether under the government control of Republicans or Democrats.

I’ll try not to quote Greenwald too much because everyone should read the piece, but here’s the opener:

As I’ve written about before, America’s election season degrades mainstream political discourse even beyond its usual lowly state. The worst attributes of our political culture — obsession with trivialities, the dominance of horserace “reporting,” and mindless partisan loyalties — become more pronounced than ever. Meanwhile, the actually consequential acts of the U.S. Government and the permanent power factions that control it — covert endless wars, consolidation of unchecked power, the rapid growth of the Surveillance State and the secrecy regime, massive inequalities in the legal system, continuous transfers of wealth from the disappearing middle class to large corporate conglomerates — drone on with even less attention paid than usual.

The density of Greenwald’s writing and his relentless presentation of evidence, examples and ironclad logic make him one of the premier progressive writers in the world right now.

Greenwald frames his argument by discussing the candidacy of Ron Paul. He doesn’t endorse Paul, but he argues the candidate is arguing for a progressive approach to both foreign policy and civil liberties unlike President Barack Obama or, of course, the other Republican candidates for president. Thus, the establishment media, Greenwald argues, doesn’t know how to cover him. Greenwald writes:

Whatever else one wants to say, it is indisputably true that Ron Paul is the only political figure with any sort of a national platform — certainly the only major presidential candidate in either party — who advocates policy views on issues that liberals and progressives have long flamboyantly claimed are both compelling and crucial. The converse is equally true: the candidate supported by liberals and progressives and for whom most will vote — Barack Obama — advocates views on these issues (indeed, has taken action on these issues) that liberals and progressives have long claimed to find repellent, even evil.

Greenwald concedes that Paul has baggage, most notably older newsletters in his name that contained derogatory comments about African Americans and the gay community but essentially argues that doesn’t just cancel out some of Paul’s other better ideas.

As Greenwald has long argued, those Democrats and progressives who “flamboyantly” criticized former President George W. Bush for his foreign and civil liberties’ policies are hypocrites when they fail to criticize President Barack Obama for continuing and even extending the concept of The Imperial President, who can essentially unilaterally declare war or jail American citizens indefinitely if they’re deemed suspected terrorists.

I agree with Greenwald, and although I have criticized Obama for his dismal record on civil liberties, it doesn’t compare to how many words, here and elsewhere, I wrote criticizing Bush on these issues during the years of his presidency. Unfortunately, like many people, I find myself drifting once again into the “lesser-of-the-two evils” political trap that is both reductionist and dangerous in the long-term. I understand this. I also understand political fatigue.

Let me be clear. Obama recently signed the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, that allows the federal government to hold an American citizen indefinitely, without trial, if the person is deemed a terrorist. The NDAA also continues the current guidelines about transfers of Guantanamo prisoners. This is wrong and deplorable.

Obama said he had “serious reservations” about the bill, but he signed it anyway. It’s obvious he signed the bill for political reasons, willing to risk trading away basic human rights of United States citizens for his own reelection chances because he doesn’t want to seem soft on terrorism. It’s politics at its most despicable level, but it doesn’t mean Paul should be president.

I warned long ago that Bush’s policies were unlikely to be overturned by future presidents, Democratic or Republican. Who wants to give up power? What politician wants to give up policies that can be turned into intense campaign tools? Perpetual war and all its attendant scare tactics favor incumbents.

Having said all this, I won’t vote for Ron Paul if he were to eventually run on a third ticket, or any ticket for that matter, because of his past racist record and his other proposals about draconian cuts in government. I WILL vote for Obama, who is a deeply flawed candidate but someone I believe—or at least hope at this point—can be moved to a more forceful progressive view by growing protests in this country over wealth disparity, civil liberties and other issues. In a second term, without an upcoming election hanging over his head, Obama should feel freer to adopt more progressive policies.

I don’t come to this position as some mindless party partisan, as Greenwald might suggest, but through a process of logic and choice. I can check out of the mainstream system or not. I can join a third party or disavow electoral politics altogether. I choose, for now at least, to engage the current political process as broken as it is, as disgusting as it seems right now to me and others, including Greenwald.

So below this paragraph are some responses to Greenwald’s piece. These are not necessarily counter arguments but ideas to consider along with Greenwald’s claims. I hope it gives at least some reason for myself and others to keep on fighting for now within the system, though I can still envision a time when sustained street protest or revolution might be the only recourse for change.

• Time. Intentionally or not, Greenwald’s piece doesn’t deal with the issue of the length of time it can take in this country for significant political change. This is often the case with Greenwald’s writing in Salon.com. The modern-day conservative movement, which we can date back to the Ronald Reagan presidency, is approximately 30 years old. By contrast, a somewhat coherent, postmodern progressive movement—note the word “postmodern” here—didn’t really begin until the controversial election of Bush in 2000. New technologies have allowed progressive ideas and rhetorical counters to conservative dogma and right-wing media to flourish, but make no mistake that this is a long process. It could take another 20 years for more progressive ideas or a more progressive sensibility to take root more broadly in the electorate.




• In praise of Obama. As disappointed as many progressives have been in the Obama presidency so far, and I’m one of them, he has accomplished what no Republican president would have accomplished during the years he has been president. He pushed through the Affordable Care Act, which didn’t include a public option but can be viewed as a first step to universal coverage if the GOP doesn’t repeal it or if the U.S. Supreme Court deems it unconstitutional. He saved the country from another Great Depression and passed a stimulus program, even if it should have been larger. He removed combat troops from the mistaken and costly military occupation of Iraq, a huge step in ending the neocon’s push for perpetual war. I agree we should end the occupation of Afghanistan as well, and I believe that could happen in Obama’s next term. I believe Obama won’t try to compromise as much with recalcitrant Republicans in a second term. I also expect him to run a campaign that reflects the concerns of the Occupy Wall Street movement about the growing wealth disparity between the rich and everyone else. These arguments are either missing or glossed over with general qualifications in Greenwald’s piece.




• Do we give up? Many of Greenwald’s pieces sometimes leave me, momentarily, politically paralyzed. What does Greenwald suggest? In this piece and others, it’s sometimes extremely unclear. Greenwald is certainly not endorsing Paul in his piece. That’s obvious. Does he think we should check out of what for better or worse we have to call mainstream politics? Should we join a third party? Should progressives condemn Obama, leave electoral politics and allow Republicans back in control with the hope the carnage they wreck will convince voters that true progressives need to be empowered?

Obviously, the number of readers who will read my longer post all the way through is relatively small, and I’m sure Greenwald could care less. But maybe Greenwald risks becoming part of what he’s always criticizing, especially when he offers no answers to our broken political system. Political change isn’t going to happen just because Greenwald appears on reductionist cable television programs and argues the “right” progressive view with a conservative shill or because he entertains the progressive intelligentsia with his dense and powerful writing. It has to happen on the streets, and that’s a disordered process that may or may not result in immediate gains or any success at all. Meanwhile, I also believe Obama can STILL be a conduit for major change or, at worse, yes, the lesser of two evils. The streets. Obama. One doesn’t exclude the other.

It’s a long shot prediction in red-state Oklahoma, but those local U.S. Representatives who recently voted in favor of dismantling Medicare could face reelection problems in 2012.

All the Republicans in Oklahoma’s Congressional delegation voted in favor of a budget proposal by U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin) that would change Medicare into a voucher program in which seniors would have to eventually pay substantially more for their health care and insurance. (I wrote about the proposal here. Here is Paul Krugman on the issue). To his credit, U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, a Blue Dog Democrat, voted against the plan, which passed the House because of the Republican majority and failed in the Senate.

Amid all the negative hoopla over Ryan’s plan, Democrat Kathy Hochul won a U.S. House special election race in upstate New York in a predominately Republican district by campaigning against the GOP’s Medicare elimination plan.

Could a Hochul-like victory happen here? Unfortunately, there are no clear signs that it could, and with the local, anti-Obama hysteria fanned constantly by the biased, corporate media here, it seems almost impossible for Democrats to make gains in the short term. Yet Democrats could have an opportunity in some races if they pushed back against the destruction of Medicare and fielded good candidates.

U.S. Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe are not up for reelection in 2012, but all House seats will be up for grabs. At this point, the best chance for Democratic success would seem to be in U.S. Rep. James Lankford’s 5th District and U.S. John Sullivan’s 1st District. Those districts cover large metropolitan areas, Oklahoma City and Tulsa, and, by default, have more diversity in political philosophies. Grassroots campaigns probably have a better chance right now in those areas. Perhaps, the perennially cash-strapped Democrats could focus on those two districts as they offer to protect Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security from the Republicans.

Lankford, pictured right with Ryan, who is serving his first term, seems especially vulnerable because he has really done nothing in Washington but essentially expressed frustration about the political process and supported Ryan’s plan to end Medicare as we know it. The idea that the Ryan plan on Medicare is a serious proposal is just nonsense. But that’s what Lankford wants us to believe. Why does Lankford want seniors on fixed incomes to pay astronomical amounts of money for health care? He needs to be held accountable.

Can Democrats here keep Medicare as an issue if the GOP backs away from the radical proposal? Yes, but those efforts need to start now and continue through the general election in 2012. The issue is simply that the current Republican political ideology in Washington is radical and dangerous. A prevailing number of Republicans apparently want to dismantle programs for seniors and end them for future generations. Those programs include Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

The Republicans argue they want to cut government spending, but, meanwhile, we continue to pour money into two military actions that Americans quit supporting years ago. Here’s what the GOP political strategy seems to be right now: Ignore what people want Congress to do and hurt as many old people as possible in the process. It may not be political suicide here among the Obama haters, but it didn’t fly in upstate New York, and it’s not going to fly in other places as well.

The idea, pushed by Republicans, that any protest against their plan is “Mediscare” and hyperbole is laughable and ludicrous given the GOP political venom used to attack the Affordable Care Act.

So the Democratic strategy here right now should be two-fold when it comes to the Congressional races: Pound Republicans on their cruel, inhumane votes to dismantle Medicare and find good candidates, who will have to work extremely hard for a long-shot chance at victory. It’s not much, but it’s something.

"We are going to get George W. Bush re-elected as president of the United States! We are going to carry New York City and New York State. Everybody thinks I'm crazy, but I think we can do it.”—New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, an independent

“You said the time has come to move beyond the bitterness and pettiness and anger that's consumed Washington; to end the political strategy that's been all about division and instead make it about addition - to build a coalition for change that stretches through Red States and Blue States. Because that's how we'll win in November, and that's how we'll finally meet the challenges that we face as a nation.”—U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a Democrat

Was The Summit A Bust?

The big “bipartisan summit” in Norman started out with a media bang but ended with a whimper.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, once a Democrat, then a Republican and now supposedly an independent, apparently told everyone there he was not going to run for president. Meanwhile, the summit’s participants, Democrats and Republicans, issued a statement that broke no new ground really and actually just echoed what presidential contender Barack Obama and some others have been arguing on the campaign trail now for months.

According to a news report, the summit, organized by University of Oklahoma President David Boren, came to this bland conclusion: Presidential candidates should spell out “specific strategies for reducing polarization and reaching bipartisan consensus.” So this is all we get after all the demands and media hoopla?

(Here is The New York Times take on the summit. Here is some online material produced by those involved with it.)

Boren, a former U.S. Senator from Oklahoma, and Sam Nunn, a former Georgia U.S. Senator, were co-sponsors of the event. Both were considered conservative Democrats during their political careers. A bevy of retired politicians, most of whom served their country in the days before the right-wing noise machine started to define America politics with bogus wedge issues, personal attacks and lies, attended the summit as well.

Some might grant the summit’s organizers were well intentioned and not just providing political cover for Imperial President George Bush supporter Bloomberg to attempt to buy the American presidency. But the summit only raised more issues about its intention. Here are three:

(1) Why did Boren, Nunn and the others wait until now to raise this issue of bipartisanship? Obviously, the tyrannical reign of Imperial Bush has been the number the reason the country is so divided these days. Why wait until the election year? Why didn’t Boren and crew do this after the 2006 elections or before and call on Bush to make changes in his reckless foreign policy agenda and political appointments? Consequently the summit seemed targeted at Democrats. Current polls show Democrats will do much better in the 2008 elections than Republicans. (Obviously, there is a long way to go before the votes are counted, and this might not hold true.) Are Boren and Nunn actually afraid the country might elect a Democrat (maybe even an African American Democrat at that) who will bring about real change? What do they possibly see in a pseudo-Republican/Independent, such as billionaire Bloomberg, who would only protect the interests of corporations and continue the country’s long, gruesome occupation in Iraq. Bloomberg has been a staunch supporter of the Iraq occupation and Bush. Doesn’t that make him as divisive and conservative as, say, presidential contender Rudy Giuliani?

(2) I call on the summit’s participants to personally answer this question: Why do you want to continue to marginalize those people who were 100 percent right about the Iraq invasion and ensuing occupation and spoke out about it with great risk to ourselves and our families? Many of us suffered through retaliation by the right-wing and still do in places such as Oklahoma, where conservatives, even if they call themselves Democrats, hold sway. Meanwhile, those who were wrong about the occupation remain ensconced in power here and elsewhere. (I think of how The New York Times just hired William Kristol, an ultra-conservative who was completely wrong about Iraq, as a columnist.) Are you saying, bigwig summit participants, that those who spoke the truth should now shut up and let those who were wrong continue to operate the government and hold powerful media positions, all in the spirit of bipartisanship? Are you saying we should not protest the occupation as did a small group at the summit Monday. If so, then I question your intentions. Do you want a government and culture in which those who are right and truthful about important national issues can participate fully or do you want the same status quo you seem to be criticizing?

(3) Again, Michael Bloomberg is not a centrist or independent. True, Bloomberg is a moderate on social issues, such as reproductive rights for women, but he has pretty much been a staunch supporter of Imperial Bush, who is the most destructive president in American history. This disqualifies him as a true independent candidate. In addition, the idea that Bloomberg could simply buy the presidency with his billions should be repugnant to all Americans. I argue this act alone—one person buying the presidency simply because he has the money and hubris and gall—would destroy any remaining vestiges of democracy this county might still possess after the Imperial Bush disaster.

This country needs change. Big change. If those Republicans who supported the Imperial Bush administration in the past can find the courage to publicly repudiate its lies and illegal acts, then by all means let’s work together with bipartisan spirit. But the repudiation must come first. Without it, this country will never come together, no matter how many summits, no matter how much hollow political rhetoric. Truth comes first, then politics.

Where’s The Snark?

Usually, when the weather turns unexpectedly cold, The Daily Oklahoman runs a snarky, unsigned editorial arguing or mentioning how global warming does not exist. This is the newspaper’s disingenuous way to support its favorite politician, one of the most despised persons in the world, U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, who has devoted his recent career to making Oklahoma the laughingstock of the world. Inhofe calls global warming a “hoax.”

Okay, so a record high temperature of 75 was set in Oklahoma on Sunday. It is winter. It is 75. So where is The Oklahoman snark about how Inhofe is all wrong about global warming since it got hot one day during the winter?

The obvious point here is you cannot gauge climate change based on the temperature for any given day, but try to tell this to Inhofe or the simpleton, warmongering editorial writers over on the Broadway Extension.