Save SCHIP for Children's Sakes

Nearly everyone professes a desire to renew the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), set to expire in September. Disagreement persists on funding levels & sources, qualification thresholds, and state discretion for variances. Is this a healthy policy debate, or a platform for ideological grandstanding? For the sake of children's health, let's hope SCHIP is funded at levels to protect the truly vulnerable.

There is a policy debate here worth having, but hold on there and look at the scope and the big picture before allowing the ideologues to drag us into minutiae. SCHIP (pronounced ess-chip) is a program which America's governors agree across party lines has benefited the hard working families most deserving of health insurance for their children that they otherwise simply couldn't afford. Everyone agrees that renewing the program for five years at the current level of $25 billion for five years is not enough. The White House wants to limit the expansion to an additional $5 billion, the Senate's bipartisan version expands the program by $35 billion and the House version (HR 3162) by $50 billion. Co-author and conservative Republican Senator Orrin Hatch's made this statement on the floor in favor of the Senate version (S 1893).

The White House is attempting to don the garments of fiscal restraint in threatening a veto of excessive Congressional expansion of SCHIP. Ahem...

In 2003, Bush famously signed into law the most expensive health bill in our nation's history. That bill with a stated price tag of $400 billion over 10 years, almost didn't pass, as Tom DeLay had to coerce one fiscal conservative with a political threat against his son to get the necessary vote. Later we learned that the administration already knew that the price tag was being understated by over $100 billion, but the actuary with that information was being muzzled by his boss, so Congress might pass it. Never mind that the biggest beneficiaries of this bill were the pharmaceuticals and HMOs, much more than the seniors it was supposed to benefit, who in spite of all that government spending were actually going to have their out of pocket costs increase. Multiple sources now tell us that the actual cost to taxpayers of this gargantuan largesse to big pharma and HMO will exceed $1 trillion dollars, though the White House denies them. Note, however, the quiet admission that the cost is over $500 billion.

Yes some perspective is in order.



So this administration wants to trim $30-45 billion off of a program which directly benefits the underinsured in the name of fiscal responsibility, when four years ago it was willing to lie about the cost of a program it supported to the tune of $135 billion, when many of those dollars are an indirect benefit, which simultaneously lined the pockets of the executives who really have Bush's ear.

Yes I understand that the 2003 program is showing a 10 year cost, whereas the 2007 SCHIP graph is showing a 5 year cost - but still look at the difference between columns 5 and 6, which the Administration is declaring a willingness to veto over, compared to the difference betwee columns 2 and 3 which the Administration was willing to LIE over. When it comes to cost control this administration has no credibility whatsoever. It simply says whatever it wants for political reasons, with no apparent regard for the public good.

When all is said and done, this war the President started will likely cost us over $2 trillion dollars, dwarfing further the bars on the graph above - and that doesn't even attempt to assign a value to the lost lives of soldiers and civilians, or the damage to our national image across the globe.

Yes there is a policy debate worth having about SCHIP. From Kaiser to the AARP to pundits to policy journals, folks are weighing in with the specifics. Maybe the House version needs to be scaled back or includes earmarks which don't belong there. I'll take Orrin Hatch's word for it that in the Senate version, "my Democrat colleagues made sacrifices in endorsing this bill and in sacrificing program expansions they so dearly advocated". I personally might prefer the House version, but this President ought to be convinced to sign some compromise - perhaps close to that bipartisan effort in the Senate. I would urge my Congressman to work to present a bill that can be quickly approved, but one which accounts for the realities that the working poor and the working lower middle class must face in health care. Some states have already run out of funds, and in instances children may be literally dying because their parents can't afford the procedures they require.

Not my focus, but ...

Generally I ignore the kneejerk idiocy of screamers at Free Republic, figuring it's just as easy to find comparable examples on the left, say in the comments at Atrios or Democratic Underground. Let's worry more about the idiocy of those who actually hold the reins of power.

But the right wing echo chamber is real and it's a good thing that not all reasonable people ignore it. It does in fact feed public perceptions far too much for my liking, so I'm glad some are vigilant at exposing its hypocrisies.

Angelica, at Battle Panda, found some priceless comments from Free Republic during Clinton's days expressing outrage at his use of the FISA process to obtain warrants rather than doing it in open court. Do you think these same folks are beside themselves now that W is even bypassing the FISA process?

Angelica summarizes:

So now you know. Circumventing the FISA court is just a part of doing your job as a commander in chief if your name is G.W. Bush. But going through the FISA courts instead of getting a warrant in open court is a jaw-droppingly Kafkaesque abuse of executive privileges if you happen to be Bill Clinton.

She also pointed me to a wonderful screed by Glenn Greenwald noting the utter misapprehension of the terms "liberal" and "conservative" by Bush loyalists:

Now, in order to be considered a "liberal," only one thing is required – a failure to pledge blind loyalty to George W. Bush. The minute one criticizes him is the minute that one becomes a "liberal," regardless of the ground on which the criticism is based. And the more one criticizes him, by definition, the more "liberal" one is. Whether one is a "liberal" -- or, for that matter, a "conservative" -- is now no longer a function of one’s actual political views, but is a function purely of one’s personal loyalty to George Bush.

One might call it just talk, but Greenwald backs it up with examples aplenty.

Prohibition

Aside from revenue questions, in judging what government should do, really the fundamental question is what should government prohibit. Extreme libertarians or anarchists sometimes feign a belief that prohibition is always bad, but I don't really believe them. Everybody has some things they want prohibited.

On the other side, extreme authoritarians want to prescribe a very narrow band of behavior that everyone should adhere to, often following the dictates of some particular religious practice.

But most people recognize, whether consciously or not, that things work best if people and institutions are granted considerable latitude in their choices, but prohibited from making a defined set of choices that are widely considered "bad".

Public debate about what should and should not be prohibited is a good thing, because we benefit from multiple perspectives. How people and institutions are defined politically is largely based on which activities they want to see prohibited and to what extent. Sometimes people get very passionate fighting over tiny distinctions, while at other times behaviors which most would find abhorrent are blithely ignored, while others which most would think to be no big deal are quietly disallowed.

Drawing lines for criminalization

Speaking generally, I believe in granting as much latitude as is practicable to human behavior, but defining clear lines beyond which certain behaviors are absolutely disallowed. For the smaller peccadillos, it is best if the morés of society do the job of regulating behavior. For really objectionable acts, though, the government should intervene, and assess punishment sufficiently severe to provide an unquestionable deterrent. This way government resources aren't wasted fussing with the small stuff, while people are legally allowed to push the limits of societies norms a little, with a strong deterrent from going too far.

This doesn't work for everything. It is vitally important for safety's sake that drivers not careen down residential streets at 70 miles per hour (110 kph), but the posted limit needs to guide the driver, who may not be familiar with the road, toward a truly safe speed, for instance 30 mph (50 kph). Hence we need a graduated punishment schedule ranging from a warning to a fine to a jail sentence depending on extent to which the limit is broken. But it is expensive to hire the cops to enforce these graduated punishments, so for most misbehaviors it is better to rely on the norms of society, rather than law, to encourage goodness, while relying on law to forcefully deter the clearly undesirable behaviors.

The rub is in determining what is clearly undesirable. As a liberal, I am inclined to draw the line more restrictively with respect to corporate and institutional behaviors, and less so with respect to personal behaviors. Often lost in the unnecessary rancor of these necessary debates is the fact that most liberals and conservatives agree on the overwhelming majority of which behaviors should be prohibited and which should not. Murder, rape, property theft, dumping lethal doses of toxins in rivers, forced labor, and blatant consumer fraud should be illegal. Personal insults, bad hygiene, hatred, leveraging a competitive advantage to drive smaller companies out of business, overcompensating executives, and creating waste in manufacture may all be undesirable, but most would agree that criminalizing them is not the appropriate measure for their control.

Examples of even the most blatant offenses on the corporate/institutional side of the equation are more awkward to describe, and so unfortunately defining the best reasonable lines for what should and should not be allowed is complex and nuanced. Where a simple law comes reasonably close to disallowing the undesirable while allowing mostly free commerce, that is preferable to a complex suite of regulations with multiple dependencies. It is reasonable to suggest that law should prohibit the blatant behaviors while industry should self regulate the details where complexity requires that. Unfortunately many industries become controlled largely by the bigger players, and the power they obtain in setting the rules mandates the need for independent oversight. Sometimes that means government intervening to look out for the interests of those without the power to insist on fair treatment.

Unequal Power

My liberal inclination to legislate corporate and institutional behaviors more strictly than personal behaviors has its basis in the fact that larger institutions and corporations accrue power as they grow. This does not make them a priori any more evil than an individual, but common sense dictates that it does make them more dangerous, and if they do misbehave the consequences are magnified. The corporate executives who are tempted to believe the report that the toxic release which would save their company millions over the alternative may not have the murderous intent of the criminal punk who has been hardened by years on the street, but if that report is wrong their choice may be far deadlier.

Economic conservatives often mock liberal "anti-corporatism", but I see their trust that the market is sufficient to control corporate excesses as frighteningly naive. I actually agree with them that the market is a good tool for directing the production of goods toward items which have actual value, but even if the market were truly free, which it isn't, that tool is certainly not sufficient for reining in excesses. And in an age where increasing monetary inequity exacerbates the power inequity, a healthy distrust of corporations should inform our politics. I'd like a show of hands - who thinks that corporations don't have enough power and influence? And yet the tired out Reaganesque arguments about burdensome regulations quashing innovation persist. I'm all for eliminating regulations which don't make sense, and am happy to stipulate that many exist, but give me a break, corporate behavior which is unseemly and ought to be stopped is rampant in our world.

We are hostages to Corporate Personhood & stockholder primacy

Two simple changes to U.S. law could go a long way toward righting the power imbalance between the common people and the mega-corporations. One would be the elimination of the concept of Corporate Personhood (not to be confused with the protection against liability afforded by incorporation), which was created out of a gross misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment (pdf) in multiple court rulings late in the nineteenth century.

While society was grappling with bringing former slaves into U.S society, the power and influence of corporations was also on the rise. While very few people were turning their attention and energy to bringing former slaves into society – indeed, far more energy was being put into NOT bringing them into society – corporations were using a great deal of their wealth to hire lawyers to advance their interests in the courts. The Fourteenth Amendment offered an opportunity to advance corporate interests, and the corporate attorneys set out to exploit it.
Of the 150 cases involving the Fourteenth Amendment heard by the Supreme Court up to the Plessy v. Ferguson case in 1896 that established the legal standing of “separate but equal,” 15 involved blacks and 135 involved business entities. The scope of the Fourteenth Amendment to secure the political rights of former slaves was so restricted by the Supreme Court that blacks won only one case. The expansive view of the Fourteenth Amendment that comes down to Constitutional Law classes today is the result of corporations using the Fourteenth Amendment as a shield against regulation.

These cases sought to establish personhood for corporations, culminating in a statement by Chief Justice Waite in 1886 commenting on Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway:

The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of opinion that it does.

Who believes that an amendment written to grant equal protection to all races really meant that corporations should be protected as citizens? Again I'd like to see a show of hands on that one. Call me a judicial activist, (ok, I AM a judicial activist), but this is one precedent that needs to be shot down, stare decisis be damned.

Stockholder primacy is the other concept which works in concert with a myopic devotion to free market principle to not only work against ethical behavior by corporations, but arguably to legally require it. Lawsuits by investors against corporations frequently cite actions which might go against the interest of investors. Taken to the extreme, such arguments suggest that where money can be saved by doing so, corporations are required to push right up to the limits of the law, even if moral compunctions might argue otherwise. Of course, such arguments can be countered by pointing out that long term investor interest is actually positively served by the good will generated by corporate responsibility. Still, I find it offensive that the interests of stockholders should take precedence over the interests of the workers, the consumers, and the communities where the corporations exist.

I love to imagine a million people marching on Washington holding signs "Eliminate Corporate Personhood" & "Our Interests Trump Stockholder Interests". Not exactly slogans there for a populist groundswell, I know. But the impact of these two legal principles are enormous, and I dare to believe that if you forced every civic minded person to learn about these issues and vote on them, both would be overturned by whopping majorities.

Democracy's Participants

Who will participate in our democracy, and how deeply?

In an inspirational appearance on PBS's NOW, [full transcript] Francis Moore Lappé reminds us that far more people are active players in our democracy than what is typically suggested by the media. And yet we run the risk of becoming what she calls a "thin democracy" if too many people view their participation as voting (if that) and nothing more.

Some excerpts from her new book Democracy's Edge are published on line, from which I found:

Out of sight of most of us, millions of Americans are satisfying their deep needs for connection with each other and expanding their capacities for effectiveness in the larger world. They are showing us how democracy can become more than a set of unapproachable, distant institutions—how it can become the rewarding way of life I call Living Democracy.

And none too soon!

The indignities and misery of economic insecurity and deepening poverty, the devastation of our ecological home, and the assault on our basic freedoms are of such magnitude that the emerging, more powerful practice of democracy may be our last, best hope.

and this! :

Contemporary social critics see America divided—left versus right, conservative versus liberal, religious versus secular. I disagree and even find these framings destructive. They deflect us from the most critical and perhaps the only division we have to worry about.

It is that between those who believe in democracy—honest dialogue, basic fairness, mutual respect, inclusivity, and reciprocal responsibilities—and those who do not. In the latter category are those willing to put ends over means, violating these core principles in pursuit of an ultimate goal.
Antidemocrats here or abroad include those willing to demonize opponents and even to kill innocent people in pursuit of political power, an idealized future, or a superior afterlife.

This certainly nails one of my most passionate beliefs. Someone who disagrees with me honestly is not my adversary, but rather my partner in an honest search for a better way forward. I can continue to be a liberal, and even sometimes radically so, without viewing conservatism or conservatives as the enemy.

NOW's host David Brancaccio followed his interview with Lappé, with an interview with another of democracy's participants, Diane Wilson, a shrimper from East Texas who confronted corporate abuse of power with effective citizen action. Her book, An Unreasonable Woman, looks to be well worth the read.

Another Political Test

Now after that recent post in which I insist that there are some noble underpinnings of conservatism, I follow Mike's link and discover that I am supposedly a:

You are a Social Liberal (63% permissive) and an... Economic Liberal (13% permissive) You are best described as a: Socialist Link: The Politics Test

This in spite of the fact that I disagreed with the assertion that we would be better off with no huge corporations and should have only small businesses instead.

In a comic afterward to the test, the creators ask:

AND FINALLY, if you could make up ONE new law and have it enforced FOREVER, by goons, what would your law be? Use your imagination, let your despotic instincts run free.

What to choose!? What to choose?! (aside from suggesting that no one should ever be able to enforce any law using goons) I rolled the metaphorical dice and came up with:

Con artists and corporate executives who are convicted of bamboozling seniors or other vulnerable people out of their life savings should have all of their wealth confiscated and returned to their victims, and be forced to use their business skills creatively behind bars for ten years to make restitution to the disadvantaged.

Satirical "Lost" Bush Speech

If conservatives were consistently this brilliant in expounding their ideas, then they certainly would be quite formidable, but then they would also be less frightening. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the notion that the underpinnings of conservatism are ethically bereft, and all eloquence in defense of its policies is tantamount to cynical trickery.

As a liberal (usually) who is most annoyed by the dogged conflation by the right of liberalism with moral decay, one of my fundamental liberal notions is that sound values based on concern for our fellow humans can honestly lead people to different conclusions. It would be hypocritical of me to not acknowledge that some conservative values have merit, when my most scathing rebuke of many right-wingers is their refusal to acknowledge any merit to either the underpinnings of liberal thought, or an occasional success borne of liberal policy.

ScrappleFace consistently publishes intelligent satire from a pretty far right perspective. His attacks of the Bush administration are pretty consistently delivered from Bush's right. But while I would often vehemently disagree with author Scott Ott's prosriptions for an improved public policy, he strikes me as being in touch with the nobler underpinnings of conservatism, so much of his commentary rings true in spite of my disagreement.

Many on the left would dismiss Ott's frequent quotations of MLK's oratory as disningenuous because he clearly opposes many of the left's proscriptions for equal opportunity. But I see no reason to believe that his implied belief in equal opportunity is not genuine, simply because he mocks systems which he sees as fostering dependency and removing incentives for positive living and contribution to society. In fact I agree that any liberal system for promoting diversity and opportunity for the less advantaged needs to avoid those potential maladies, while I suspect that Ott would agree that any conservative system which demands responsibility and accountability should implement checks to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful.

In the current political climate, I find myself unambiguously allied with "the left" because I see the rise of corporatism as a real threat to the egalitarian ideal which has been advanced in fits and starts over the last two centuries. The current leadership of the Republican party is marching us toward an ever increasing gap between the wealthy and the poor which is in dire need of reversal. Many leaders of the opposition rightly point to the importance of framing in the right's success in gaining currency for their ideas in the national dialogue. They will point also to the technique of smearing the ideas associated with liberalism in changing the tenor of the debate. The implication is that progressives need to wage a similar campaign in reverse to compensate for the current imbalance. They may be right.

My fear is that when all the focus is put into winning the argument for one's "side" we lose sight of the values that were the underpinning of our ideology, and we contribute to the poisoning of the dialogue for those of good intent on both sides of the debate. But we don't need to lose sight of those values. The liberal values of generosity, enablement, fairness, openness, and freedom of thought can remain central to our discussion of the issues. We can agree with conservatives that personal responsibilty, accountability, temperance, and caution are worthy values to keep in drafting a way forward, without compromising our own ideals.

This is why I find no inconsistency in declaring myself to be both liberal and conservative, even though I supported the supposedly "far-left" candidacy of Dennis Kucinich in the last election. It's why I never stop looking for signs of reason from some in the Republican party, because ultimately we need a synthesis of ideas rather than a one-sided solution. Too often compromises are tactical rather than principled and we get a muddled centrism which brings some of the worst from both parties together. But not always. There are success stories out there. We must find them and model them if we are to choose hope for our future.

The Neocon - Religious Right Alliance

Jack Whelan has captured some essential truths which I would really, really like every thinking liberal, moderate, and conservative to read before further participating in whatever version of the culture war that has captured their fancy. You can read the whole thing by going to his site and scrolling down to:

The Neocon Nightmare World
But because I want this to be seen, I am excerpting liberally:

Both Bloom and Lasch understood that a society pays a price when it values individualism and freedom above all other values. For both men the laissez faire in Liberalism creates a fragmented, atomized society. This is a problem for Lasch because it diminishes the possibility for human community life, destroys local traditions and neighborhoods, and creates a culture of narcissism, a culture of minimal selves--of lost souls who don't know who they are, a society of ungrounded people who are empty of any real interior life, and who are therefore weak and easy to manipulate.

In other words, Liberalism creates a vacuum in the life of a society where instead there should be a soul. Nature abhors a vacuum, and so the emptiness is filled with the crudest kinds of impulses. ... The problem lies with a society that is fragmented, because it is weak. An open, multicultural society in which every thing is equal, in which no value or cultural ideal is considered any better than any other, an anything-goes "different strokes for different folks" society loses any sense of cohesiveness and is very vulnerable to manipulation by a willful, well-disciplined minority that has no qualms about violently asserting its own values and suppressing any other value system as inferior and to be annihilated.

In other words, the easygoing, nonjudgmental laissez faire of Liberalism invites its own destruction by those whose attitudes are anything but laissez faire. ...

For the neocons, politics is thuggery, and you fight thuggery with thuggery, so the only thing that matters is whether the thugs you approve of are running things. The thuggery that we began to see assert itself on the right starting with Newt Gingrich, the impeachment of Clinton, through to the the bullying of Tom Delay in the House are all justified by Straussian theory. It's thuggery in the cause of the higher good. They really believe that. Liberalism must be destroyed or America will be destroyed by its enemies.

For the Straussians, following Carl Schmidt, politics is not the sphere of compromise and working things out, it's the realm of domination of the weak by the strong. For the neocons, politics is war. It's about controlling the political process or being controlled, annihilating or being annihilated. They understand power as the central truth, and every other value has value only insofar as it promotes power. And the neocon influence in the Republican party seems bent on proving their theory right by doing everything it can to discredit and destroy Liberal ideas and Liberal institutions. And so far, judging by the compliancy of the Democrats, they seem to have proven their case.

All of this has become so much clearer for me after reading Shadia Drury's Leo Strauss and the American Right -- particularly the virulence of the conservative attack on Liberalism which until recently I had naively dismissed as crackpot. Most normal people think of wingnuts like Limbaugh, Robertson, and Coulter as comical, barely sane troglodytes. These wingnuts, on the other hand, take the Liberals very seriously, and see them as a cancer that is destroying American society and making it spineless and weak, and as such all the more vulnerable to its enemies. They believe that Liberalism is destroying America, and they are totally committed to preventing that by destroying Liberalism. "Let the Liberals laugh at us," think the wingnuts. "We'll see how hard they laugh when eventually we put our boot on their throats."

The great virtue of the Liberal credo is its belief that a society can be built on truth, philosophy, and enlightened self-interest. But I also think that over the long haul that's not enough. Conservatives understand that a society needs myths, religion, and to stand for something worth dying for. Otherwise, as Drury points out, "it is little more than an animal farm." I would say that a postmodern America needs to find a way to integrate both the Liberal and Conservative credos. ...

Until reading Drury's book, I thought that the alliance between the intellectually sophisticated neocons and the simplistic religious-right extremists like Falwell and Robertson was a marriage of convenience engineered for short-term political gains. But Drury makes clear that the neocons believe that the religious right is essential for continued American dominance because it provides the requisite myths that justify American supremacy. ... ...

For the Straussians, if a society does not believe in itself as superior in every way to its enemies, it will be defeated by an enemy who is not intimidated and that believes itself superior. The neocons therefore have formed an alliance with the Christian Right not for political convenience, but because the Christian Right naively and fanatically accepts the myth of American superiority and of its special God-given role in world history. The neocons support the wingnut attitude that anyone who does not believe this myth is an America-hater and, as Ann Coulter puts it, is guilty of treason. There is no gray area. There is no room to criticize. It's my country right or wrong--any other attitude leads to inevitable defeat by another society that believes in itself more.

Sane people dismiss extremists like Coulter as comical crazies. I know that's been my attitude. But the very fact that her views have been legitimated by her ubiquitous presence in the media points to the drift of things in this country toward insanity. What should by now be clear to everyone is that the right is not just indulging in a lot of crazy talk. They are walking their talk. ...

Does that mean that anybody who wishes to oppose the neocons must resort to thuggery to defeat them? No. But I do not believe that secular liberalism has the resources to defeat it. Even if the Democrats win in the short run, the problem remains for the long run. We need a tough, principled, idealistic politics in the spirit of King, Mandela, Gandhi. These men were not nihilists. They were genuinely religious humanists who understood evil and knew how to fight against it on their own principled terms, not on the terms defined by the thugs.

The Straussians are convinced that we all live in a nightmare world and that there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to human existence... They believe that the masses have to be anesthetized and controlled with myths and religious fictions, but that the grownups have to run things, and the grownups understand that it's all about power, and that so long as the U.S. has the enormous power it now possesses, it had better use it or lose it.

This explains their gambit in Iraq--it was an opportunity to fill a geopolitical power vacuum with American power after the collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence in the Middle East. It's a gambit that has failed--the Muslims there are not Liberals, and they do not fold so easily. But I for one am worried about what they have up their sleeve now that their policies are being discredited by their failure. They will not walk away with their tail between their legs. They still believe they are right even if their tactics were ineffective. They will not be gracious in defeat.

And they are not going away. Wingnuttery in America will always be a problem so long as there is a vacuum in American society where there should be a soul. How to solve that problem in a sane, progressive way is for me the most pressing issue that confronts Americans in the 21st Century.

Those Borrow and Spend Republicans!

There's a title that pretty much speaks for itself.

Sure I'm participating in a little partisan echo chamber here, but I'll justify it in the name of balancing the "Tax and Sp..." meme that's been droning out of the right wing echo chambers for the past two decades. Besides, this liberal is all for taxing fairly and spending wisely, and dead-set against taxing unfairly, borrowing irresponsibly, and spending foolishly. Foolish spending, of course is a bipartisan activity, but the notion that it is more rampant among liberals or Democrats has been so utterly discredited over the last two decades as to be laughable - except a lot of people still believe it.

Hence my willingness to repeat it often: Those Borrow and Spend Republicans!

Appeal of the "Radical Middle"

When 'centrists' or 'moderates' avoid mushiness, and demonstrate that their philosophy incorporates solid principles that are worth defending, their arguments can be very compelling. I have discovered that by Jack Grant's definition, I am a moderate myself. I also find the views of Joe Gandelman at the Moderate Voice to be both sensible and principled, his description of his 1980 vote for Reagan as "one of the most satisfying votes I ever cast" notwithstanding.

I'm not ready to abandon my own self-identification as a liberal quite yet, as will become evident enough over the next two weeks, but as ever informing our policies with the views of principled folks of all stripes should be seen as desirable. I can fault the left as much as the right for spending far too much energy on discrediting the other side, rather than proffering constructive alternatives and in some cases compromises.

It was in that spirit in which I checked out Mark Satin's Radical Middle Newsletter earlier this week. The first article I checked out, Take Back America - or All Together Now, America, a harsh critique of a conference of progressive liberals, almost soured me on Satin's site entirely, due to the contemptuously dismissive tone which was used throughout in describing the various speakers there. There's no surer way to turn me off than the sneer, which I expected the least out of someone purporting to represent a centrist alternative.

Nonetheless, I did give him a second chance by reading his 12 point creative centrist agenda, and am quite happy that I did, and encourage you to check it out as well. Clearly I did not agree with all twelve points without reservation, but they include fresh thinking and radical reform while maintaining existing structures where possible. Ironically, I found some of the points to fall very closely to traditional liberal thought - though that is not too surprising as Mark identifies himself as a former lefty. His eleventh point, "national security via sharing our wealth and expertise with the developing world", sounded like it could have been lifted directly from Jim Wallis' God's Politics, which amused me because of the way Satin had savaged Wallis in the previous article.

The whole business leaves me wondering: If we can't get over the demonization of left and right which is going on so relentlessly right now, maybe the best way forward is to take the best ideas of both and couch them in a radical centrist agenda which may be less poisonous to both sides. The problem is that whatever you call it, the details will get the attention of those whose gravy train it threatens, and demonization and labeling will occur. Still if relabeling can have any impact on getting good policy enacted, let's go for it. There's plenty out there that left and right can agree on if the ideological associations can be muted.

Confidence and Humility

Humility and Confidence need not be mutually exclusive. In fact they desperately need each other. Confidence without humility breeds meanness, self-righteousness, and arrogance. But the wisdom born from humility is lost to the world without the confidence to share it.

In preparing for this post, I searched for quotes from accomplished, and necessarily confident, historical figures extolling the virtue and necessity of humility. I expected to find wisdom from Martin Luther King, for instance, and I am sure he had great things to say about humility in his extraordinary life which exuded wisdom, confidence, and humility. But quickly I came upon the following from Helen Keller which strikes at the heart of this message:

I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is moved along not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker.

Keller, against incredible odds, indeed did accomplish a great and noble task in publicly sharing her wisdom with posterity. But she had the humility to recognize that without the goodness of the multitudes there would be no substance from which the great and noble could emanate.

We require the talents of many, as without each other all that is good falls apart. We need the philosophers, the teachers, the artists, the scientists, the manufacturers, the workers, the mothers and fathers, the logicians, the planners, the cleaners, and the earnest efforts of the humblest among us. In a well-functioning dignitarian society each role is carried out for the benefit of everyone, all are recognized for their contributions, and each can retain his or her dignity. Our own Western society functions far better than many, indeed in many ways amazingly well, but leaves plenty room for improvement, and in some areas dire need for improvement.

When we are able to take a role in our society, cognizant of the contribution we can make in it, we can and should be satisfied with our place in the world. We can sharpen our talents, expand our abilities, and improve on our contribution, but clearly no one can do it all. Everyone, no matter how great their accomplishments, is indebted not only to the "giants" who preceded them, but also to the many nameless contributors without whom they never would have had the platform from which to realize their greatness.

I feel I have some talent for expressing my thoughts. I feel no obligation to be the most brilliant philosopher to share my perspectives on our world for public scrutiny. I know I have some things wrong, but I'll do my best to honestly share what I believe to be true. Because the things I think about frequently have me making moral judgments, I am keenly aware of the need to guard against the hubris of feeling personally morally superior, because I know that not to be the case. I can look not only to failures in my past, but also to flaws in my current character and behavior to see my own warts. But it is a critical contribution to our society that we speak to a greater vision, and celebrate the best of human values. Millions upon millions of people do these things every day in large ways and small ways. Most parents do it with their children. It is unreasonable and unnecessary that we require of anyone addressing a moral concern that they be without flaw in regard to the area which they are addressing. Indeed, who better to speak to at-risk youth than an ex-con who took the wrong turn himself at their age?

Yet we are frequently timid, too timid, about speaking to the greater vision we may see, especially when that means speaking truth to power, because of doubts about our own truths as well as fear of repercussions. Some timidity is warranted, though, lest we become smug and self-righteous in our own surety. Dee Eisenhauer in a beautiful statement for peace, reminds us

Humility will help us cool our jets a little even as we seek to create peace. Here is a teaching I have found helpful for many years: I am right about 80% of what I believe and wrong about 20%; the trouble is, I don’t know which is the 80 and which is the 20. Some reserve even about our best ideas is appropriate. It’s not that there is no “right” and “wrong” -—a huge liberal mistake—- but in our speech we seek always to persuade and not pulverize, realizing we may be in error.

Eisenhauer's caution does not grant us leave from speaking our truth, but rather counsels care in how we do so. If the world only hears from those who (think they) are 100% right, I fear for her prospects.

The web has made such public introspection easily available, so I've decided to hang my ideas out here, while looking for other means to speak my truths and challenge authority where I believe it to be in error. My readership has remained relatively small, which has limited my temptation into hubris about the importance of what I have to say. But the nature of my explorations lends itself to big ideas, and the danger of succumbing to self congratulation always lurks around the corner. I've appreciated tremendously kind comments and emails from readers who have appreciated my words and have expanded my own perceptions with their offerings. Such exchanges keep me motivated to continue to explore and share, both here and in the rest of my daily encounters. But Keller reminds us that the small kind acts of those around us, nobly undertaken, provide the push for advancing the causes that sustain our hope for a better future.

Celebrating What's Right

It has been a few days now since I returned from the westbound leg of my cross-country family car trip. Open water of the Great Lakes, waterfalls, forests, prairies, badlands, mountains, and wildlife; these trips never disappoint, and the memories sustain me for years to come. Good people come in many flavors and from many places and bring meaning to our experiences. Happiness springs from the ability to amplify the kindnesses we encounter so that the meanness and pettiness that gets tossed our way becomes but a minor nuisance. I've been very fortunate in my life to have the former in healthy doses, and the latter in manageable doses, most of the time. And so it is that I return from the wide open spaces resolved to celebrate the positive, more than to curse the negative.

The politics of denigration and mockery persists, however, and I confess you may find me celebrating the potential demise of Karl Rove or Tom DeLay, as Rove's current troubles take center stage in our daily news. My objection to the actions of Rove and DeLay is amplified by the extent to which the promotion of their agenda is dependent on the disparagement, mockery, or sometimes worse of their opponents. I may differ fundamentally with their agenda, but if it were pursued in honest and fair debate with the ideas of their political opponents, I would not so resent their successes, and could grant their right to a place in the discussion about how to shape our public policy.

But if I become so enthused about their potential downfall that I lose sight of why an alternate way forward seems preferably to me, then I put myself at risk of succumbing to the negative political spiral which spoils so much of the current discourse in our society. While Rove tries to spin reaction to 9/11 to create distrust or even hatred of "liberals", it behooves those of us who are prone to wear the liberal label to be unafraid to celebrate what we see as right and noble about liberalism, rather than simply denigrate the agents of changes with which we disagree. It may not be the most expedient political strategy, but in the long run I think people will respond to a positive message, especially one which allows a breadth of ideas to be considered. I steadfastly maintain that there are principles of both liberalism and conservatism that hold legitimate value, as there are both libertarian and communitarian principles of value.

Perhaps my inclination to wear the liberal label is partly a contrarian one, because it is currently out of favor, but I know that liberalism's precepts, which I intend to expand on in future posts, are not deserving of the rebuke which they are currently receiving from the disdainful faction of the right in this nation. I also know that there are many conservatives who are impatient with the tenor of the message of their fellow conservatives who are predisposed to dismissive language, and they will be our allies in finding the best way forward if we are able to exhaust society's patience with the politics of disparagement.

Debunking Linearity - Again

Periodically, I post something here which pretty much makes the same point about the fallacy of trying to evaluate issues and policy based on a linear notion of political ideology from left to right or right to left. I keep coming back to it, because I see that fallacy at the heart of so much misunderstanding and rancor. In spite of common ground in the motives of decent people on both sides of the political gulf, we face paralysis in bridging the gap even in cases where there are solutions which should appeal to both sides. It is easy to see how both sides get trapped in this linear wrong thinking, because in spite of being one to harp about it, I get trapped there myself more often than I'd like to admit. The whole language of left and right is a powerful reinforcer of this faulty notion.

Here's an example of how self-identified liberals, like myself, often err in today's America:

I look at my President and his policies, and what he says and does are just outrageous! It offends me that he is acceptable to so many people! I also know that I am moderate in my views [and here they think of the ways that they are obviously moderate - whatever that might happen to be], so if I'm moderate, this administration and Congress are clearly way out of the mainstream and must be far right wingers, and anyone who supports them or is farther to the right must also have an unworthy, outrageous, and extreme ideology.

And here is a comparable example of how self-identified conservatives get it wrong:

I see the people on the left getting all riled up and angry about my President. But I listen to him speak, and though he sometimes stumbles over his words, he often takes positions that seem very moderate to me. In fact many times I don't think Bush is conservative enough. Those lefties talk about us like we are all awful, greedy, filthy rich pigs. But I know that I'm a decent caring person who volunteers to help out others, so those people who hate me must either be extreme left wingers or else fooled by their leaders.

Now I can hear some of my liberal friends objecting, saying but they really ARE way far to the right, and they can bring up plenty of examples I wouldn't particularly defend as moderate. Folks who think of themselves as conservative would no doubt bring up their particulars to argue the opposite.

But my point stands.

In each of the forgoing passages there is a leap with faulty logic, which is due specifically to the framing of all politics in a linear fashion. I agree with the stipulation that Bush's policies are outrageous, and in my view immoral, and in many instances I find them unacceptably extreme, but what makes them outrageous is not their mythic position along some linear continuum, but the extent to which they cause hurt or worse to real human beings, damage our democracy, lower our credibility, ignore established science, and extend the divide between rich and poor. My argument has always been that it is not how far right Bush is, but how far wrong he is.

The dialogue about national policy needs many voices at the table. The human community thrives on diversity of skills and abilities, and to succeed in building our relational systems, no less do we need a diversity of perspectives.

The conservative errs in equating outrage to extremism as the liberal errs in equating acceptance to extremism. Perhaps we all err in seeing extremism as the enemy. Meanness is the enemy. Sometimes extreme perspectives, even those we adamantly disagree with, can help sharpen our focus and bring clearer relief to the picture. It is when extremism is accompanied by disregard for our fellow humans on this planet that it becomes unacceptable and condemnable. In fact, such disregard can occur without extremism. As imperfect humans we all are guilty of it at some time.

Maybe I'm wrong to so condemn this administration. But I am quite capable of listening to contrary perspectives without condemning all those who espouse them. I've recently discovered RedState.Org, and am quite impressed with their community - one which has a very different take on the current administration than I do. I read in their comments genuine concern about the state of our nation and a desire to be part of making it better. Quite unlike the tenor at Free Republic, which I will not grace with a link, they value discourse over sound bites, civility over rancor, and welcome interaction with liberal perspectives which are offered respectfully. Frankly, based on what I've seen so far, I'd say they do a better job than DailyKos of keeping the level of discourse high, even though I'd still agree more frequently with opinions expressed at Kos.

There are liberals I know, who by most linear measures are less liberal than I am, who would dismiss RedState.Org with smug contempt. They've fallen for the linear trap. There are conservatives, who upon finding out that I am "more liberal than someone else who dismisses them with smug contempt", would dismiss me as not worth even talking to. They've fallen for the linear trap.

I guess I beat this concept into the ground, but I do so because I find that it is so difficult NOT to fall for the linear trap. Much hope resides in those who do not fall for this trap, and there are many who do not, and quite a few of them are United States Senators. Now maybe it's just practical politics, but look at Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch. One is reviled by the right the other reviled by the left. And yet on multiple occasions they have cosponsored legislation, once quite recently to reach a compromise on embryonic stem cell research. Maybe it's practical politics, but maybe they have forged a relationship and recognize the humanity in the other in spite of the invective most of their own supporters would have for the other. I don't know, but it is entirely possible, because it is not necessary to be smug and dismissive of someone who has a radically different world view than oneself.

I'm not so naive to be blind to the pressures of partisanship in reinforcing linear divisiveness, but if Hatch and Kennedy can forge agreements, certainly there is hope that citizens can recognize humanity across ideological differences and forge bonds which help to heal our wounds. But it takes some vision beyond the talking points your party gives you.

Naiveté

I grew up surrounded by the notion that liberality was well intended but beset by a proclivity for naiveté. The criminal can't be trusted, therefore the law must be harsh. The rogue state has no honor, hence all negotiation must be done while carrying a big stick. Any soft-heartedness will be taken advantage of; welfare only fosters dependency; and it's every man for himself in this dog eat dog world.

I've been happy to acknowledge considerable truth in all of those statements. Yet I hold steadfastly to the belief that giving oneself over to hard-heartedness amounts to capitulation to the darkness within, and must be resisted else we become as undesirable as that about which we are avoiding being naive. What good is it to avoid being fooled by evil, if in the process we become evil. By all means, let's avoid being fooled, but let us also act with compassion.

Why, that sounds like compassionate conservatism! (I know that real compassionate conservatives exist, but in government they are rare, and perhaps never proclaim the mantle.)

But naiveté is not exclusively a liberal tendency. In fact the whole equation in terms of who is getting duped, and who is arguing for realistic analysis has been turned completely on its head in the last several years. It often comes down to who one thinks is deserving of trust. Ideology is a terrible barometer for such a measurement.

The untrustworthy among us are only too happy to adopt whatever ideology is most likely to advance them personally. As our country has increasingly swung to the right that face of convenience has become increasingly a "conservative" one. Not that the "liberal" face is not still used by duplicitous frauds where that is the one that works. Frauds deserve to be unmasked regardless of their putative political stands.

Checks and balances remain our constant friend in the struggle to have truth prevail, and anyone should be wary of those who see them as a nuisance. Exposing the truth is job one, deciding on how to respond to it requires thoughtful deliberation. It is far better for a group of interests who disagree over methods to hammer out a compromise with the aim for a shared vision, than for those who agree about a method to ram through their agenda when they have not agreed on what vision they are serving.

Let's presume for the moment that the vast majority of our current leaders are motivated primarily by a genuine desire to spread freedom, foster self-improvement among our citizens, and to serve justice with compassion. I know it's a stretch, but consider that if it's not a majority, there are certainly some for whom that is true. Now let's revisit the question of naiveté.

When one believes after a campaign of shock and awe which litters the land with ordnance laden with depleted uranium, that the citizens whose despotic leaders have thus been deposed will universally welcome the foreign victors as liberators, who is being naive?

When one believes that by lifting regulations which limit the full breadth of options for industry, free market forces will be sufficient to assure corporate responsibility in the stewardship of our environment, the fair treatment of its employees, and the safety of its customers, who is being naive?

When one believes that prosecutors and law enforcement, unburdened by rules which disqualify valid but misobtained evidence, or limit interrogation techniques, won't frequently abuse that new power, who is being naive?

It's not that we shouldn't work toward the removal of despots, and allow markets sufficient freedom to promote innovation, and give law enforcement reasonable tools to deal with unscrupulous criminals; it's that we can't give carte blanche to the despot removers, the free-marketeers, and the prosecutors and police merely because they've signed up to work in those professions. There's a balance to be struck, and to steal a phrase from George himself, "it's hard work" to reach it, and that work is never done.

Now that I've engaged this little fantasy that our administration is purely motivated, but simply too naive in its trust for what are presumed to be the forces for good in the world, let me say that I'm deeply skeptical. There are simply too many instances where before and after statements don't line up, and that which seems disingenuous at best, seems likelier to be outright deception. Sure there are good people within the administration, and there are many others who justify what they know or suspect to be falsehoods as necessary tools toward a greater end. But at the end of the day I can't reconcile the behavior I've seen reported with anything other than something being deeply rotten. But if I'm wrong and it's not rotten then it is disturbingly naive.

Facing Contradiction

The original name of this blog was "Well, Duh!" I ultimately found that too smug, but I kept the tag line, "Permitting Ourselves to State the Obvious", because the premise still stands. Folks often start being attached to ideologies, parties, or causes, and lose sight of the important stuff that mattered causing them to become active in the first place.

Liberal bloggers frequently ignore this obvious truth:

Saddam Hussein was a tyrannical monster whose removal from power is a wonderful development.

Yes, the following truths are also obvious:

It is wrong to lie to justify going to war.
It is wrong to kill innocents in war.
It is wrong to use depleted uranium in bombs to create bunker busters when the long term effects of its use will poison innocents.
It is wrong to justify a culture which resulted in the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

I find the behavior of the Bush administration repugnant on so many levels, that I will continue to speak out against it, and yet the overthrow of Saddam is such an extraordinarily good thing, that I cannot be dismissively certain that it doesn't outweigh all of the outrages perpetrated toward that end. Now given that the incompetent way in which it was handled is creating all manner of other problems, from the loss of respect for America in the world, to the rise of recruitment of anti-American jihadists, and the potential for Iraq's future to continue to look very bleak and Iran to become a threat we can no longer credibly handle, then the balance of what the future holds may indeed be worse than simply leaving Saddam in power. But I am not certain of that.

I am certain that there was a better way to depose him. But I'm extremely skeptical that Gore, for instance, would have started a course of action that would have seen Saddam out of power by 2008. That doesn't mean that I am not quite confident that the world as a whole would be better off had Gore been elected in 2000, but on average, the people of Iraq, may actually be indebted to our bungling cowboy. That's why in the end, in spite of my outrage at Bush's lies and handling of the Iraq war, it was actually more the domestic front than the international one which cemented my commitment to voting for Kerry last year.

Cross-Ideological Alliances

With divisive partisanship, culture wars, and worldview analysis all seemingly on the increase, is there reason to hope for moderation, compromise, and indeed simply the willingness for those on different sides of a debate to acknowledge some truth in the arguments of their adversaries? My take is that there is always hope - at least long term - for forward steps toward healing, understanding, and enlightenment. More often than not enlightenment implies a realization that some assumption one has been operating under is either mistaken or incomplete. Enlightenment therefore is more likely to come by reading and paying attention to views which are contrary to one's own. It does not necessarily mean "switching sides", though it may mean realizing that the accepted separation into sides is a false one.

I have recently discovered an ideological soul mate in David Brin, who asks:

With whom should you ally yourself? Someone who shares your immediate political campaign, while disagreeing with you utterly over long-term goals? Or someone who shares your deep agenda for a better world, but disagrees over immediate tactics?

Most people -- when it is posed that way -- choose the latter. After all, tactics are a matter for pragmatic debate. We can try out all sorts of methods. Success may call for a mix of your way and mine.

When conservatives argue that there's a tendency among liberal academics to subscribe to certain orthodoxies about what is true, and what can be mockingly dismissed, they are largely correct. Of course they don't as readily see the same phenomenon operating on their side of the fence. They are aware of all the differences of opinion there, which are freely aired, just as the academics are keenly aware of their own differences among themselves. On both sides however, there are subjects which are taboo - but shouldn't be.

There is an understandable concern that ceding certain points is strategically dangerous, because "the other side isn't going to give an inch, so we can't afford to." This sort of turf protection, though, is short-sighted and forces people into silly corners where they are left defending indefensible positions.

In the run up to last year's election, in spite of my dismay that it wasn't blazingly obvious to most sensible people, regardless of how they self-identified, that Bush was a dangerous choice, I discovered that the constellation of people with whom I can most naturally relate included a fair number who made (sometimes nuanced!) decisions to support Bush. As perplexing as their choice may be to me, it is nonetheless very encouraging to know there is potential for dialog across this divide.

There are two sides to what has been referred to as polarization in our society. To be sure the vilification of the other which accompanies it, is hurtful and stymies progress toward solutions. But if passion can be harnessed with calm reason, people will realize that there are areas of agreement. Natural cross-ideological alliances can be nurtured to bring change that most will be happy with, and good can happen even in the darkest times.

For example, we can look for allies on "the right" who agree that the worst examples of corporate wrong-doing often need much stronger penalties. I look at the successes of Eliot Spitzer in reining in excesses in the financial industry. This interview of James Cramer by David Brancaccio on NOW was instructive:

BRANCACCIO: You're a man who has long experience hanging out with captains of industry, people in the business community. What do they tell you when the name Eliot Spitzer comes up in conversation?

CRAMER: If they're in a group, they'll tell me that he's the Anti-Christ. If they're individual and we're alone at a bar, best thing. Best thing that ever happened. Because for the most part people want to be good, but whole cultures have flourished where the people who are honest don't do as well as the people who are dishonest. I think that Eliot is changing the calculus back to where the honesty is rewarded and the dishonest is out of favor again. Most people want to be honest.

And while seeking areas where our supposed adversaries, are actually inclined at some level to agree with us, we should be willing to cede areas where those traditionally thought of as "the other side" have the stronger argument. For instance, we can acknowledge that there are indeed plenty of individual regulations, such as the total ban on DDT, which were in retrospect too onerous, and need revision. There is a temptation to see every potential concession as a bargaining chip, but every instance where we defend a weak position in anticipation of a trade, becomes instead a liability which can be used to tarnish the whole of what are important principles.

So while I won't shy away, for now, from referring to myself as liberal or progressive, the label should never substitute for particulars, and if you catch me bending to orthodoxy rather than reason, please challenge me.

Letter to my conservative friends and relatives

Dear friends and relatives,

I hope this crazy election season finds you in good spirits and able to still laugh and smile with people of every political persuasion. I must confess that I am feeling very grave concerns about this election, which are hampering my natural tendency toward light-heartedness. Because my fears for our wonderful nation are so great, I am feeling compelled to share them in the most urgent terms with everyone that I can.

While I have some conservative values, on the whole I am fairly liberal in my political outlook. Having said that, I do strongly believe that a healthy government needs a mixture of conservative and liberal voices within it in order to govern with balance, and our two party system can potentially provide a mechanism for that. I think that it is natural for anyone to want to believe the best about their elected officials who represent the ideology with which they feel most closely aligned. When a bad apple does show up, it is typically going to be the opposition party who sees that clearly first. This goes both ways.

In the current election I have never been more certain in my life that the Bush administration has gotten way off track and represents a very real threat to the fabric of our democracy. I know that may sound overwrought, and you may believe I’ve been hoodwinked by the talking points of Democratic partisans, but before you rush to that conclusion please refer to the enclosures with this letter. There is the very eloquent endorsement of John Kerry by John Eisenhower, son of the late President Eisenhower, and a lifelong Republican. There is the analysis of the Bush team’s handling of the Middle East by foreign affairs correspondent, Thomas Friedman. Consider that on the eve of invading Iraq, in spite of his trepidation about it, Friedman was hopeful that the bold move would be well handled and bring a true positive change to the region. Finally I am enclosing a graphic based on data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which clearly demonstrates that there is no basis for believing that fiscal responsibility is the purview of the Republican party.

Many who may be troubled by some of Bush’s policies, take solace from the apparent deep religious convictions that he holds. I cannot claim to know what is in George W. Bush’s heart. I can observe the policies of his administration, and what both Bush and his spokespeople have had to say in their defense. What troubles me most deeply is the level of deception which has been used in those statements. Deceit is certainly not one of the Christian values which I learned growing up in Sunday school in Georgia. Now I recognize that some deception comes with the territory of American politics, and that there is plenty of it to go around in both parties. But let me point out just two examples, which I find simply unconscionable.

The first was the suggestion which was made repeatedly that Saddam was somehow linked to the planning of the September 11 attacks. Whatever one believes to be the case about the intelligence suggesting that Iraq was harboring WMD, no reputable analysts from either party truly believed that Saddam played a role in planning the attack. People in the administration knew that Saddam was despised as a secular infidel by Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Nurturing a public perception that one knows to be false, as a means of garnering support for a military action which will cost many lives, is just not forgivable in my view.

The other was when the bill including the prescription drug benefit was on the table, and headed for a tough fight in Congress. Richard Foster, chief actuary for the Medicare program, had new estimates that the bill would be $150 billion more costly than the previous estimate, and later revealed he was threatened with firing if he revealed that before the vote. Two months after the vote the higher cost of the bill was revealed.

I do not relish being so negative about our leadership here on the eve of our election, but I love my country and feel it is my patriotic duty to call it as I see it. John Kerry may not be your cup of tea, but I believe the Republican party will be well served to lose this time around. A Bush loss will cause more reasonable voices can rise to the fore within the Republican party, and we can return to a healthy balance with many perspectives and ideologies represented in our government. Rest assured that conservative values will continue to be represented in Washington, D.C., even if Kerry wins and Democrats regain a narrow majority in the House of Representatives. John Kerry understands that it would be unwise to govern without the moderation demanded by the closely split electorate we have seen over the last several elections.

I continue to have great hope for the future of this great nation and the world in which my child will grow up. However you decide to vote in this election, please understand the earnestness with which I believe a change of leadership is a necessary step in healing the wounds of partisanship, which are so apparent today. I am not going to give up on our country if Bush wins this election, but I do feel I owe it to myself, and to future generations to do what I can to set a new course. Thank you for considering my earnest plea!

Sincerely yours,
Walker

The foregoing is pasted from a letter I actually wrote today, but haven't yet sent, to a relative back in my home state of Georgia. Now given that most of my relatives are in Georgia, a state Kerry doesn't really need, I need to judge whether the letter will do more to upset than to sway. There's no point in upsetting 'Aunt Hilda' in her last days, or wasting the effort on 'Uncle Milton' who I know would only roll his eyes in mockery. If my conservative friends and relatives were in swing states, that would move the bar toward sending it. But like the protagonist of Alice's Restaurant, I just gotta wonder: suppose every reasonable conservative in the country received one or two such heartfelt letters from friends or relatives they don't ordinarily talk politics with? Even if it didn't sway the election, it might change the way we relate to each other. And that ain't all bad.

Reasonable Right

In the early days of 2004, I believed that Bush's Achilles heel would be an oncoming wave of defections of prominent conservatives and Republicans whose consciences would demand that they put country ahead of party and publicly endorse the Democrat this time around. I continue to argue that a Kerry win would benefit the Republican Party long term, by strengthening the voices of reason and moderation within it. I clearly underestimated the power of loyalty and personal investment in the party that moderates feel, as the anticipated wave has been a trickle of mostly retired Republicans or non-office-holders. Even groups like Mainstream 2004, a collection of Republican ex-governors and ex-senators decrying extremism and calling for moderation within the Republican policy, come short of simply endorsing the opposition, though Linwood Holton, former Republican governor of Virginia and member of the group has suggested that he could not vote for Bush under the current circumstances.

Now that's not to say that there aren't a lot of long time Republicans who will defect this year. I think that especially in the over 60 crowd there are many who remember the days of Eisenhower, and are ready to say that enough is enough. But for anyone officially within the party, there seems to be a formidable taboo against officially endorsing a formal opponent. Hagel, Snowe, Collins, and sometimes McCain may equivocate about particular administration policies or stances, but you won't be hearing a cross-party endorsement. Even lonely liberal Republican, Lincoln Chafee won't come out and say he's voting for Kerry, though to do otherwise would be inconsistent with his voting record in the Senate.

Conservative columnists certainly feel freer to express doubt and dissent at aspects of the policies of Republicans. But even so, there is surprising reluctance to give outright endorsements of the other guys in deference to the country ahead of party concept. I'm always looking for exceptions to this, and will be pleased to have more pointed out to me.

John Eisenhower, son of the former President, wrote an eloquent editorial endorsement of John Kerry, in which he says "we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past." He even goes on to express enthusiasm about his decision to pull the lever for Kerry, which is just about unprecedented for a prominent Republican.

Among the regular citizenry, of course, there's no such taboo. I found:
republicansforkerry.org
republicansforkerry04.org
republicansforhumility.com
republicansagainstbush.info
publicchristian.com
anotherrepublicanforkerry.com
in a quick web search.

I do hope some exit polls ask voters to identify who they voted for, if they voted, in 2000, as it will be interesting to see the number of switches. I agree with what I've read that the number of switches in both directions is likely to be unprecedented this year, as 9/11 and its aftermath, as well as the Bush response to it and the launching of two wars, had profound but uneven effects on almost all Americans.

Boorish Political Behavior

One unfortunate side effect of the politically charged atmosphere we Americans live in right now, is the thoughtless and uncaring behavior which comes out when people get so emotionally invested in their desire for a particular outcome, or the dominance of a particular world view. The flip side is that it's encouraging to see so many people make the connection, and see the relevance of public policy on their lives and on our society.

Even if people don't get it quite right, or focus too narrowly on side issues, I think it's actually a positive thing that the level of engagement is so high. But because Americans aren't used to that, the discourse too frequently descends to shouting and name-calling, and that certainly is not good. My hope is that when the election is behind us, and we all realize that we're still here living together, that engagement can translate into a more civil discourse based in the knowledge that there is no imminent election and the improvements we need to work toward are long term efforts which will require the cooperation of folks with different opinions.

I don't claim to be immune from the negative side effects of political passion. I'd like to think that I would never grab a sign from the hands of a child (or anyone else for that matter) or shout down a veteran marching in a parade - two instances of boorish behavior by Bush detractors, which I've seen reported. But I did catch myself nearly shouting on the phone in a conversation with my aunt this summer, and I've talked with friends who admit that they've gotten too carried away.

Some tend to take a bean counter approach to these incidents, but that proves nothing that we don't all already know. There are boors of every political persuasion, and their presence or number has nothing to do with worthiness of any particular policy position. Feeling cornered can bring out the worst in some people, so as the pendulum swings in one direction, those at the other end will feel marginalized and sometimes act out in unseemly ways. For that reason if instances of misbehavior by Bush detractors outnumbers those of his supporters this season, as I suspect is likely the case, it's not really a surprise.

Most candidates for public office behave themselves reasonably well in public, leaving any misbehavior to surrogates who can spread innuendo, while absorbing most of the backlash in lieu of their candidate. Kerry and Bush were both mannerly in last night's debates, which came as no surprise to this observer. People from both sides will attempt to read ill intent into the reactions of the candidate they oppose, but ultimately it is the policies which are paramount in making this awesome decision of whom to entrust with the reigns of the most powerful government on earth.

Between now and the election, I will continue to make the case that the Bush administration represents a danger to our continued well-being, our environment, our security, and our freedoms. Through it all I will continue to respect many fellow citizens who have earnestly come to a different conclusion. Many think that I ought to also respect our President. Well, I don't. I can't. I've said before that I can't know what's in George W. Bush's heart, and that's true. But I would be disingenuous if I didn't also admit that I suspect the worst. What I do know something about is his policies, and consistently they bespeak a contempt for many of my most strongly held values. About that, I cannot be silent.

I've already made the case that the political spectrum in this country is oversimplified, and that almost everyone has a mixture of conservative and liberal values, and other values not neatly labelled as either. What I find so objectionable about this particular administration and part of the leadership of the House of Representatives is not WHERE they fall along some left-right continuum, though I do feel they are significantly to the right of the mainstream, but the total lack of empathy for anyone or any group which stands in the way of pushing their agenda, and the wanton disregard for the concerns, and yes even the lives, of the downtrodden, when those concerns are at odds with the moneyed interests which prop them up.

Much of the right in this country misjudges many like me, who they see as "Bush-haters". I think they believe that our "liberalism" is a misguided justification for loose moral behavior, and that we see ALL conservative values as a threat to our agenda. But that is wrong. Speaking for myself, I think it is essential that wise conservative voices continue to have a place in our national discourse. I genuinely share some of their values, and respect others which I may not share. Importantly they also share some of my liberal values, whether or not they label them as such, like concern for the dispossessed and the sense that society has the responsibility to take care of its least fortunate. George Bush mouths some of these values, but his policies tell a different tale, the details of which I'll not attempt to address in this post.

John McCain in contrast has frequently broken with his own party when a bill was too harsh or not consonant with some of the basic human values he believes in. If McCain were the President today, I am next to certain that there would be little energy in the Presidential race. There would be respectful debates, but the result would be a foregone conclusion. There's not a Democrat who would stand a chance. The angst you now see from the left in America would be centered on Tom DeLay and other corrupt politicians willing to sell our democracy to the highest bidder. But there would be a lot less angst. McCain would have been Presidential in his approach to 9/11, and built on the unity that we felt (and yes I felt it too!) in those dark days in 2001. I can't know what would have happened in the Middle East, but I'm certain it would have been better planned and I doubt that we would have so alienated our European allies.

No the hue and cry one hears against Bush today is the direct result of Bush's own doing. It's not because of how far right he is, but because of how far wrong he is. Without the fear that this administration has nurtured out of the tragedy of 9/11, this would be no contest. But getting beyond the fear, and finding hope and possibility is exactly what we need to do. I don't pretend that John Kerry is the perfect answer for that, but I am certain that he is at least a step in the right direction. Not only that but the Republican party will be strengthened by Kerry's winning, as it will be forced to find more moderate voices to carry it forward.

In the meantime, we will all do well to remember the humanity of our neighbors, regardless of what they happen to be displaying in their front yard or on their bumper or their lapel. We should not avoid discussion, or be afraid of what they will think of us by revealing our views, but we should be civil. Most of us will still be here on November 3rd, and we will still be neighbors.

Big Government

So when will the right stop running against Big Government? What does it take? - Controlling all three branches of government for 8 years? 20? before it starts to sink in, hey this "Big Government" is no longer a liberal Democratic behemoth. Well if Democracy is preserved, they ain't gettin' 20 years, and hopefully not 8 either. And if they do get 8 years, the real behemoth should be pretty well exposed - if not by the timid media, then by a raucous chorus of common folk too used to a tradition of free expression to remain silent. That's the beauty of America, our democratic traditions. But let's not wait another 4 years, let's show W and his party's ideologues in the House of Representatives who really loves freedom. We do!