Telling It Like It Is

It struck me early on that the primary reason Al Gore chose not to run again for the Presidency might be to free himself from the shackles of having to weigh every statement and address against its impact on his electability. Whether or not that was the reason, he certainly has taken advantage of his newfound independence from the electoral process to deliver speeches like the one today with its no holds barred ... ...explication of the dangerous policies relentlessly pursued by the current administration.

If the congress becomes an enfeebled enabler to the executive, and the courts become known for political calculations in their decisions, then the country suffers. The kinds of unnatural, undemocratic activities in which this administration has engaged, in order to aggrandize power, have included censorship of scientific reports, manipulation of budgetary statistics, silencing dissent, and ignoring intelligence. Although there have been other efforts by other presidents to encroach on the legitimate prerogatives of congress and courts, there has never been this kind of systematic abuse of the truth and institutionalization of dishonesty as a routine part of the policy process.

While I'm heartened by the candor and zeal shown by Gore as he continues to stump for the truth, I'm soberly aware that he is being largely ignored as much the country is unwilling to recognize truths which are unpleasant. The sad truth is that candor is rarely rewarded on election day, and Kerry recognizes that all too well as he equivocates at every corner, making laughable the right's accusation that he is too liberal. Still he could certainly do with a better speechwriter to at least pull off the appearance of candor. My best hope is that enough truth will seep out into the mainstream to make another four years of Bush untenable to enough moderates and intelligent conservatives. Thanks Al for your contribution.

Missing the Obvious

Well, I've been falling down on the job. Three of the last four posts have favored subtlety over the obvious. In the most recent harangue about prosecutorial zealotry, I waxed on for five long paragraphs, failing to state plainly:

Innocent people don't belong in jail.

No person's pride is worth denying another person's freedom.

Rules should never prevent justice from applying common sense.

Besides that, I had started the post meaning to get around to questioning how so many victims and police, and to a lesser extent prosecutors and judges (and I hope it's a small minority, especially of those last two) get into a trap of feeling the necessity that somebody's gotta pay for a crime to the point that they talk themselves into believing the accused is guilty even when revealed truth begins to cast doubt and later even suggest otherwise. In some cases it even seems there is a willingness to keep a clearly innocent person behind bars, because to do otherwise would establish an undesirable precedent. Now that is clearly unconscionable! Look for a post in the future on the Tyranny of Precedent. [End of Post]

Prosecutorial Zealotry

This week, the investigative show Frontline on PBS had another expose on innocents behind bars in America. This one, called The Plea, focused on the role of plea bargaining in increasing the likelihood that a defendent would either confess to a crime they did not commit, or in maintaining their innocence, increase the severity of the sentence they receive, and further tie the hands of parole boards who are enjoined not to approve early release of prisoners not showing sufficient remorse. How can remorse be genuine on the part of someone who isn't guilty?

These shows evoke a deep visceral reaction in me, beyond what is typical when I learn of other social injustices. Many would think that my reaction is out of proportion to the problem, which certainly affects a minority of convictees. I will concede that a substantial majority of convictions are of people who are actually guilty, and that the number of guilty who are suspected and not tried for lack of evidence, or who are acquitted, likely exceeds the number of innocents who are convicted. But the utter needlessness of so many of these cases being prosecuted, when the doubt of their guilt should be plainly obvious to prosecutors - if not at the outset of the trial, then at some point in the process - just raises my hackles like little else.

Especially troubling was the case of a woman whose stubbornness in refusing to plead guilty to a crime she claims not to have committed has kept her in prison through what would have been the prime of her life. There is simply no plausible explanation for a guilty person maintaining her innocence when she could have walked free after 10 years in prison simply by pleading guilty. One year ago after 26 years in prison, a clemency board refused to free her without explanation. The parole board who will hear her case next year is not expected to grant parole, since the prisoner is unlikely to express remorse for a crime she didn't commit. One can reasonably argue that such cases should be overturned simply on the basis that there is no logical explanation for such people maintaining innocence other than being innocent, never mind that the original evidence against this woman was flimsy and circumstantial to begin with. Of course the problem with that is, if it became automatic to overturn cases for illogically maintaining innocence, then maintaining innocence would no longer be illogical.

There are several organizations out there who are working this problem from different angles, so I am not alone in my concern. I've been aware for a while of The Innocence Project which has exonerated 144 prisoners using DNA evidence as their primary tool. The Center for Public Integrity has a branch which investigates prosecutorial misconduct and has discovered substantial recidivism on the part of numerous overzealous prosecutors around the country. Chicago's Northwestern University maintains a Center on Wrongful Convictions whose work in exposing and documenting cases of innocents on death row was vital in Illinois Governor Ryan's moratorium on executions.

To their credit the current House of Representative passed The Innocence Protection Act in November of last year, which grants "any inmate convicted of a federal crime the right to petition a federal court for DNA testing to support a claim of innocence.". This does nothing to help those defendants where DNA cannot help. It seems to me it's time to start retiring those prosecutors who repeatedly engage in misconduct likely to result in the convictions of innocent people. I'll not support a simplistic "three strikes" rule for firing prosecutors, because such formulas invariable inject too much luck into the process, but certainly prosecutors who have convicted multiple exonorees, or who have been censured for misconduct on multiple occasions deserve investigation with the possibility of losing their jobs. I suspect the threat of job loss for prosecutors will be a better deterrent to their misconduct than the possibility of facing the death penalty will ever be for a person considering the commission of a capital crime.

Spiral of Greed

So who among us denies that greed is spiraling out of control in America? Some will say it's no different than it's always been, but it seems to me a similar spiral occurred around the turn of the last century and slowly got some much needed brakes applied. No, the propensity for greed never really stopped, but over the last 25 years some very clever marketers started selling the story that the brakes on greed were deterrents to free enterprise, and that it was somehow in the interest of the common folk to scale back or remove the "awful" bureaucratic tools of regulation; of progressive tax structures; of minimum wages to keep up with inflation; and of incentives for business to act in the public good. The free market in its infinite wisdom will magically take care of everything! Huh??? And it's liberals that are naive? There are plenty of incentives for corporations out there still, but increasingly they are incentives for misbehavior. Is it really true that 60% of the biggest corporations pay zero in taxes? Where's the outrage?

I survived revisionist week in America

The last eleven days passed by without the veins popping out on my neck as I listened to yet another conservative wax nostalgically about America's great loss. The liberals were there too, noting that "in spite of ... [questionable Reagan policy of choice] ... optimism ... [likable personal attribute of choice] ..."

It's not that I don't still believe that Reagan's tax policies led to a huge reversal back toward the economic injustice that reigned at the dawn of the industrial revolution. Nor that I've come to believe that many third world innocents weren't royally screwed and often killed (or worse that they somehow deserved it) if those who represented their cause happened to have the 'wrong' economic ideology.

But in the eighties I was an angry young liberal, who when I saw an unquestionable wrong, inferred that those contributing to it necessarily were motivated by pure evil. Many of my friends at the time were inclined to believe that Reagan himself was just dumb and duped, but I correctly observed that he was actually quite intelligent, and so concluded that he must therefore be immoral. I see now, that though my leanings haven't changed, there is an awful truth that many Presidential decisions carry horrific implications regardless of the path chosen. To his credit, I think that Reagan actually did realize this, but once he decided on a course knew how to put a happy face on it and ignore the downside, causing many of his detractors to think he was just stupid.

There is an interesting parallel today, in that many are convinced of Bush's stupidity in his dogged pursuit of failed policies. An intellectual he is not, but he still must be smarter than the average Joe. I suspect (though I certainly can't claim to know it) that the younger Bush lacks the FULL appreciation of the true gravity of his responsibility, which most former Presidents including Reagan have had. It's hard to conceive that any President would not be burdened by their awesome responsibility. Reagan and Clinton both had the acting ability to hide that burden from the public. Nixon and Carter did not.

As some try to paint the Bush presidency as the extension of Reagan's legacy, much to the chagrin of Ron Reagan, Jr, liberals will usually try to deny the comparison, often avoiding emphasis on their own disagreement with Reagan, with an exception here or there.

At the end of the day, as a voter, it's not really necessary for me to know what's in Bush's brain or his heart, or how he compares to Reagan. It's sufficient to know that his policies are frightening in global proportions. As the focus turns away from the laurels for the deceased, deserved or not, I'll press forward to move for regime change here in America.

The Fight for Congress

Most pundits say there is little chance of the Democrats wresting control of the House of Representatives from the GOP this election year. The latest congressional redistricting in most states further solidified the creation of safe districts for incumbents such that very few districts are expected to be in play in any given election year. With the Republicans currently enjoying a 228-206 advantage, few have dared to suggest that the Democrats have more than a long shot chance to become the majority party. The unprecedented mid-decade redistricting in Texas alone is seen as likely to result in a pickup of 4 or 5 seats for the GOP, further widening the gap that the Demos would have to narrow. Here is one Republican's assessment of which races should be competitive in the House. More attention has been given to the Senate where the margin is much narrower, and more Demos are daring to hope for majority status.

The conventional wisdom may well turn out to be true, but here is my contrarian speculation that the House is actually likelier to change hands than the Senate. I will grant that this is partly wishful thinking on my part, as a majority switch in the House stands to create more political thunder than a switch in the Senate where greater moderation on both sides of the aisle tends to dampen the influence of the majority, especially when it's a slim one. Some may argue that the Senate is more important due to its role in confirming appointments, but it's the House where continuous control by Republicans since 1995 has resulted in partisan entrenchment and the establishment of rules creating institutional barriers to change rivaling those which the Democrats had built up after forty years of control of that body prior to the Republican Revolution of 1994. Frankly our nation would be well served by at least one switch in party control per decade to avoid that type of petty partisanship.

My inclination to believe a Democratic surprise may be in the works stems from the tide of unabashedly liberal activism, and the rising concerns of libertarians and fiscal conservatives, both of which have sprung up in reaction to the Bush administration's four-headed approach to governing by warmongering, rights abatement, deficit spending, and cultural divisiveness. This isn't to suggest that I don't believe the polls that show a closely split and increasingly polarized electorate, nor that I believe the Republican base isn't also going to vote in record numbers. But among the many constituencies which are NOT in either party's base, I suggest that those who are inclined to oppose Bush will be voting at a substantially higher rate than those inclined to support him. This is why the polls may be "lying".

While events could yet conspire for things not to turn out that way, this potential differential in who shows up in November could translate into both an unexpected landslide for Kerry, and longer coattails than have been seen in years. The reason I think the coattails might be more noticeable in the House than the Senate is largely regional. Only one-third of all Senate seats are up for a vote, and many of the closer races are for southern seats currently occupied by Democrats. The stronger cultural conservatism in the South is likely to mitigate my suggested turnout differential there, and the loss of just two or three of those Senate seats is likely to be insurmountable. In contrast, as always, every seat in the House is up for re-election, and a motivated large anti-Bush turnout could produce more surprises in House races previously not believed to be in play.

As a partisan myself, I am especially anxious to see the Democratic Leadership put more resources than they might otherwise be inclined to into House races which have historically gone Republican with percentages in the high 50s and even low 60s, especially outside of the South. One strategic arm of the Democratic establishment, the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC) seemed to share my take on the unique opportunity of 2004 back in their September 2003 Board Memo:

As President Bush’s ratings continue to slip, and the Republicans continue to be wrong on the issues that matter most to people, Democratic races for the US House and Senate have become even more competitive. Principally because of 2002 redistricting there are a smaller number of competitive US House races. While it will be a truly difficult challenge to overcome a 22-seat GOP advantage in the House, a weakened Bush and discredited GOP has the potential of putting many more House seats “in play” in 2004. It is possible that by this time next year there will be significantly more competitive House races and the Democrat’s prospects of recapturing control of Congress will be much brighter.

But in their more recent winter newsletter, they backed substantially away from such optimism, only barely mentioning that:

In addition there is a strong chance Democrats will be able to pick up a couple of seats in the House of Representatives.

In contrast, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, more of a fund-raising organization dedicated to winning seats in Congress, at least officially, seems to remain more hopeful. Personally I wish that Tom DeLay could become the sort of political lightning rod for the left, that Ted Kennedy and Hillary have become for the right. "Demote DeLay" could become the generic "vote for your local Democrat for Congress" yard sign. Alas it would be lost on the average voter outside of DeLay's own district, who's not inclined to think of their vote as having anything to do with majority control of Congress.

Control of the House by the Democrats, should my November surprise actually occur, is likely to be short-lived however. If accompanied by a Kerry Presidency, the motivated electorate I'm hypothesizing to show up to turn out Bush will fall back to their usual habits in two years, and the redistricting to favor the party currently in power will not have changed, meaning the GOP would retake most of the seats they lose this time around. Even so, an interruption to a Republican majority, should be celebrated by moderates everywhere, as it should substantially quell the activist right-wing freight train being led by Hastert and DeLay.

As far as my personal druthers are concerned, I actually am hoping for my prediction not only in the House but in the Senate as well, since I see the advantage of some of the moderate Republican leadership in that body tempering possible excesses of what would otherwise be one-party control across the board. This in spite of the fact that I test to the left of Kucinich in this on-line measurement of one's political compass, though I remain very skeptical of that result.

I'm looking for feedback from readers!

A couple of posts down, after my critique of Attorney General Ashcroft, I requested links to examples of good people who are being unjustly thwarted or incarcerated due to the overzealous policies of the justice department. I'm confident examples abound beyond the recent case of the attorney from Portland wrongfully suspected of involvement in the Madrid bombing and held nearly two weeks without charge. Please comment to that post or email me if you can point me to others.

Also to the right you will notice my "Beyond the Pale" links to stories about actions of the Bush administration which warrant far more outrage than they have received. If you have further suggestions for that series, or better articles than the ones I've chosen for those stories, I want to hear about it! I'm interested in articles, preferably from the mainstream press, which focus on facts more than opinions. It seems to me the conclusions we should draw from these are pretty obvious - or at least they should be. Well, Duh! [End of Post]

Idealistic Vision & Practical Considerations

I've always been an idealist. At times that's led to naivete, but it scarcely means that I can't weigh practical concerns in reaching conclusions. Indeed it is never necessary that idealism be naive. Martin Luther King Jr was extraordinarily effective because of his ability to predict the practical outcomes of group actions he endorsed, while never losing sight of the idealistic vision, which was the underpinning of the changes he espoused.

It strikes me that a very common course is for people who follow their ideals early and get burned one or more times to become cynical and start to favor practical courses of action over idealistic ones as a matter of policy. The world very much needs pragmatists skilled in predicting outcomes, but when pragmatism becomes the goal, and idealistic vision is mocked as naive, then pragmatism loses its point altogether.

It is my intent to present the ideal and ask "Why not?" Sometimes there's a good answer, but even then keeping a vision of the ideal gives us a yardstick against which to measure the various outcomes short of the ideal which are within reach. After that it is all cost/benefit analysis, but proximity to ideals needs to be kept as a highly desired benefit, else we stray down a random road without much meaning.

Attorney General Ashcroft

I have little doubt that John Ashcroft is well-intentioned, and sincerely believes that he acts on profoundly moral principles, but unless he quickly comes to understand that many other profoundly moral individuals are being profoundly screwed by policies that he has engineered, his remaining in power creates a danger to the foundation of our Democracy.

It is a sufficient indictment of his policies to show that many entirely innocent people are being hurt by them, but I am especially looking for compelling stories of people whose good works are being stopped or interrupted by legal or other action from this justice department. Send me some links! [End of Post]

even a stopped clock is right twice a day

Though I disparage him, even our president is occasionally right. The other day he remained steadfast in his refusal to open the strategic petroleum reserve, even giving the correct reasons for doing so. This made me happy on two counts. One he is actually doing the right thing, and two the resulting failure to reduce gas prices may slightly hurt his reelection chances. I'm OK with the fact many will vote against him for the wrong reasons, knowing already that many will vote for him against their own interests.

Of course the president went on to chastise Congress for not passing his energy plan three years ago which would have lined corporate pockets and diminished environmental protections. Who was on that energy task force anyway?

Am I Overwrought?

Those who know me, may be surprised to hear me equivocate about my own liberalism, declaring that I have conservative values as well. I certainly will NOT equivocate about my displeasure with the policies of the Bush Administration! Therein lies the point. My displeasure is not focused on how far to the right the administration has moved, but rather on how consistently wrong it is. Indeed there are politicians arguably to the right of Bush, Jack Kemp comes to mind, who command my respect though I might adamantly disagree with much of their politics.

Of late, I've been almost overwrought about the willingness of so many to find Bush to be an acceptable leader of this, the most powerful nation in a dangerous world. Many who share my distress express dismay at how far to the right Bush has moved. I don't think he has *moved* to the right, he has simply focused on issues to *appease* the far right constituency upon which he depends so much. The frightening underpinning of his foreign policy appears to have been there from the start, and is equally appalling to Pat Buchanan as it is to Ralph Nader. Opposition to gay marriage and the like is all just window dressing to activate the conservative base.

Labels / Multi-dimensionality

Some things, though they are pretty obvious to most folks, routinely get ignored most of the time. Most people would agree that we are complex beings, with views and beliefs which vary from issue to issue, based on our values, assumptions, and evaluations of cause and effect. And yet many of us routinely fall back on the attempt to label people as being fixed at some particular point along a single axis. When thinking politically, that is more often than not how 'liberal' or 'conservative' one is, with 'moderate' being defined as the center of the line, but moving considerably toward the opinion of the speaker.

Ever since George I, in his debates with Dukakis, chose to denigrate his foe with the label of liberal, clearly used as a pejorative, I've taken to wearing the label as a badge of honor. The core values I have, which often lead me to liberal positions on issues, are such things as concern for the disadvantaged and downtrodden, a sense of fairness, a spirit of generosity, and a willingness to try on new solutions. These hardly seem deserving of the mockery with which it has become fashionable within some circles to demean liberalism. But I certainly have some conservative values as well. Caution in exercising new solutions, temperance in personal behavior, respect for honored traditions, calm in dealing with new situations are some examples.

What seems saddest to me, is when people become so attached to how they are identified, that they constrain their beliefs to some sort of orthodoxy, rather than thinking out what really makes sense to them for any given issue. These same folks, liberals and conservatives alike, then apply the same orthodoxy to what they hear from others, rather than judging an opinion on its merits. It's possible to deeply respect an opinion with which you vehemently disagree, just as it's possible to disrespect one whose basis is adherence to orthodoxy, even though you might agree with its conclusions.

So if, for instance, I happen to agree with Richard Rodriguez' opinion on the failure of affirmative action to achieve its aims, it hardly follows that I want to deny opportunities to black Americans based on their color. Neither does it mean that I won't listen to cogent arguments to the contrary. But some would find me out of orthodoxy and hence dismiss all my opinions out of hand. I confess to tending to do the same thing when someone argues a position with which I vehemently disagree, but I do try to be watchful that I not let my leanings cloud my ability to follow someone's logic, even if I end up dismissing their conclusion based on a separate line of reasoning.

Permitting Myself to State the Obvious

As I embark on this project of publicly sharing my views, let it be known that I frequently expect to be sharing observations that are pretty obvious. It seems to me that many, in their desire to be erudite, shy away from the obvious in favor of subtle distinctions. Subtle distinctions can be important, but sometimes they are used to obfuscate the more obvious truth. For instance:

                War is hell

In order to justify the organized slaughter of our fellow human beings, there needs to be an extraordinarily compelling necessity. War has become such a regular part of human history, that we become inured to the idea of it, in spite of recognizing its horror. I will not shy away from identifying myself as a pacifist, in spite of my intellectual recognition of the practical need for nations to organize militaries for their defense. Yes there have been cases where taking up arms has been a necessity for one side in a conflict, but far more often its necessity on both sides has been argued by those who stand to gain by the bloodshed of others, and the end result is a tragic waste. Even in those rare cases where the totality of human suffering endured is arguably less as a result of a war than it would have been without it, it does not necessarily follow that the war was the only means to the improved end. If we cannot dream of a future without war, what good are dreams.

Spoken 37 Years Ago - Chillingly Relevant Today

The setup process is somehow not conducive to great profundity, so I'll start out by quoting Dr King's words from 1967, from a sermon he gave at Riverside Church in New York.

“… the words of the late John F. Kennedy come back to haunt us. Five years ago he said, ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’ Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values. We must rapidly begin the shift from a thing-oriented society to a person-oriented society. When machines and computers, profit motives and property rights, are considered more important than people, the giant triplets of racism, extreme materialism, and militarism are incapable of being conquered.

“A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.

“A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, ‘This is not just.’ It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, ‘This is not just.’ The Western arrogance of feeling that it has everything to teach others and nothing to learn from them is not just.

“A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, “This way of settling differences is not just.” This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.

“America, the richest and most powerful nation in the world, can well lead the way in this revolution of values. There is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent us from reordering our priorities so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war. There is nothing to keep us from molding a recalcitrant status quo with bruised hands until we have fashioned it into a brotherhood.”

-- Martin Luther King, Jr
May 1967