On Deals; Budget and Otherwise

There was a certain inevitability of the President and Senate leadership accepting a deal that cuts nearly 40 billion from the budget. Once the President made the inane comparison between the federal budget and a family budget the die was cast, but it didn't have to be this way. If Obama wanted to he could have made the argument that we don't have a deficit problem because we just extended tax cuts that are skewed towards the richest and most well off in our society and we are not going to cut programs that serve the most in need. However, making that argument would not have allowed the President to appear as the grown-up dealmaker that he wants to be. Sure the Republicans got much more in cuts then they initially offered but at last the Obama image and brand were protected.

Oh, the "compromise" that bans the District of Columbia from using local funds on abortions for poor women is still more proof that the deal that is too odious for Democratic leaders to make has not yet been found.

Dear Robert Gibbs:

As the press secretary for a Democratic President, you are by definition a member of "the professional left."

Many of us who push President Obama from the left do so not because we are paid to do so but because we are passionate; often times more passionate about the President's agenda then many of his professional supporters.

Thinking About Elena

I have been thinking about President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan to be on the Supreme Court and why I feel skeptical about the nomination. My thinking has been shaped by some comments made by Matt Yglesias and by Kevin Drum.

I don't think that Kagan is a stealth candidate and I think that she will undoubtedly be a consistent liberal voice on the coourt. In the same way I believe that President Obama is a mainstream Democrat and will constantly move the country in a more progressive direction.

However, I also know what kind of Democrat Obama is turning out to be. He is the type who makes labor unions accept an excise tax to get healthcare passed but refuses to do much to push for labor's most important agenda items like the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama is the type of Democrat who is pushing for the closing of Guantanamo Bay but who also believes in issuing an executive order to assassinate a U.S. citizen. He is the type of Democrat who consistently gives away liberal positions in hopes of courting conservatives who have no intention of supporting him. Obama is the type of Democrat who signed some of the most progressive legislation in a generation into law but still seems enthralled by the consensus, elite economic opinion that got us into the mess and seems to think that the way out is to inflict pain on the middle and lower income classes.

My uncomfortableness with Kagan ultimately has less to do with her then with the President who nominated her. While I am broadly supportive of President Obama and his agenda, I am fully aware of what objectionable positions and actions he is able to take. I have the same worry that Kagan will be a mirror image of the President in that regard.

Here We Go Again

I watched with dismay as President Obama announced his intention to allow for more offshore oil drilling. For me, what is especially galling is his explanation that he is seeking "to move beyond the tired debates between right and left."

Every time I hear Obama talk about getting beyond the debate between left and right, I just assume he is about to sell out liberals and get nothing in return from conservative Republicans.

At Least You Have Your Healthcare

President Obama and the Democrats scored a big victory this week with the passage of the healthcare bill. Other people(Ezra Klein and Jonathan Cohn are my go to people) can talk about the substance of the bill better than I can but I want to focus on some of the political aspects.

The passage of this bill means the Democrats will maintain their majority in 2010. Various historic and political trends will mean Republicans gain congressional seats but since they did not defeat Obama and congressional Democrats then they will not gain the majority. Unlike in 94, Democrats have a success to blunt the Republican criticism and popular items they can use to attack Republicans for opposing.

Republicans know this and know the magnitude of this defeat. They also know they lost to an African-American and a woman and many conservatives can't stand that fact either. The world is changing and the old guard is giving way to the new. The healthcare bill demonstrates that the new guard can do what they said they were going to do and that they will be around for a while.

So, Kudos to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Sen Harry Reid(who may well have sacrificed his seat) and every Democrat who voted for the bill for achieving the biggest legislative advancement since the Great Society and hopefully ushering an area of more progressive governance.

Tying the Threads Together

White House news this week was dominated by two major stories. The first was a series of articles that all praised Rahm Emanuel, and blaming Obama's difficulties on not listening to Rahm's more conservative advice. The other story is Washington Post's story about Obama getting ready to reverse course and try 9/11 plotters in a military tribunal.

Ezra Klein has the best take on the Rahm story and what it all means. I have been interested in Rahm ever since the Michele Norris gold star incident. My opinion is that Emanuel is a ruthless genius when it comes to gaining power but he seems to have little concern for what he wants to use the power for.

As for the decision to use military tribunals, Glenzilla, Josh Marshall, and Yglesias all say what needs to said. I will add that what I have noticed that President Obama seems to be able to find the exact limit of what is politically possible(in this case closing Gitmo but keeping miltary tribunals) and then doing what is possible but he does not seem to be able to expand what is politically possible. I find this sad because one of the reasons I supported Obama was I thought he would be able to expand what is politically possible.

Tying these threads together, I would say that the disappointment that exists with Obama comes from his being a President who doesn't know what he will uncompromisingly fight for who is served by aides who don't know what they want power for.

Obama and the State of One Year

A year and a week after Obama was inaugurated, he appeared before Congress to deliver his first State of the Union. Even though, Obama should be in good political shape(Democrats actually hold more seats today than they did a year ago and there are incremental but substantial successes to point to) recent events made it feel like the President was in political trouble. The recent Massachusetts special election, and ensuing Democratic freak out, made the situation look worse then it should.

Obama used his speech to give a reset to his administration. I liked that the President came out fighting and defending his record. I also enjoyed the air of silent tension in the House chamber. While the audience was outwardly more respectable, there appeared to be a constant undercurrent of reaction to Obama's speech(even from Associate Justice Samuel Alito). It felt like a Prime Minister addressing the House of Commons on a serious subject. I am also glad that the President affirmed his support for the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and Defense Secretary Gates endorsement.

I wanted to hear a firm commitment on Obama's plan for passing the healthcare bill. While he did not give the firm direction I was hoping for, Obama did appear to give a guiding hand to the direction he wanted to go. He said he would not "walk away" from healthcare, and then later said the Democrats still had large majorities and "should not run for the hills." My belief is that this is the boost needed to encourage the House to pass the Senate bill and for the Senate to promise to use reconciliation to address the needed fixes but granted I am reading between the lines.

Ultimately what will determine the success and effectiveness of Obama's 1st State of the Union is the passage of healthcare, and a change in the jobs and economic outlook.

The Nobel Prize for War and Peace

President Obama accomplished the rare feat of accepting the the Nobel Peace Prize while in the process of escalating a war. The President used this occasion to articulate his particular interpretation of the "just war" theory.

He starts by acknowledging his debt to Martin Luther King but also says that as President he can't "be guided by their [King's and Ghandi's] example alone." Fair enough. However, I wonder if King's words about his country being the largest purveyor of violence in the world makes any impact on Obama's view point. Obama is right is that there is nothing naive or passive in King's methods but I wish Obama also recognized that King was spot-on in his view of the U.S. It appears that Obama's position limits his ability to see.

To defend the idea of 'just war," Obama states "a non violent movement cold not have stopped Hitler's armies." Pulling out the Hitler card is a cheap sot by the President; especially by cherry picking the date. A non-violent movement could not have stopped Hitler on September 1, 1939 or on June 6, 1944. However, Hitler did not come from out of nowhere. Hitler had been a force since the early 1930's and a non-violent movement might well have stopped at an earlier date.

Obama's big idea is that it is possible to fight a war on humanitarian grounds. I believe the President is sadly mistaken. First, when a country decides to go to war it makes a decision to commit resources that would be allocated in a different manner towards the war. The New Deal died at the hands of World War 2; President Franklin Roosevelt admitted as much when he had Dr. New Deal give way to Dr. Win the War. President Johnson's Great Society died at the hands of the Vietnam War. With a military budget of nearly 670 billion dollars, it is worth asking what kind of humanitarian projects at home are being starved at the expense of our war machine. What kind of humanitarian action continue to allow millions of people to go without health insurance or only sluggishly attempts to address the fact that 1o% of Americans are unemployed.

During his speech, Obama continually cites the war in Afghanistan as an example of the kind of war the fits into his paradigm. It's hard to see how that can be the case. Obama calls the war in Afrghanistan a "war we did not seek." This is a limited view of what precipitated the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan. There is nothing in the 9/11 attacks that made a military response inevitable or necessary. the attacks on Pearl Harbor, which are the closest cousin to 9/11, were a strictly military attack. The Japanese Navy attacked U.S. military installations in the Hawaii. The surprise and shock of the attack does not diminish the military nature of December 7, 1941. 9/11 was not a military attack and should be viewed as a crime against humanity. Nothing suggests that a military response was required. Instead an international law enforcement effort could have accomplished much of the same thing. When the use of Guantanamo, black sites, and the Prison at Bagram are factored in it is impossible to see the military solution as being in any way "humanitarian."

Obama does touch on some meaningful goals. He continues to tout the idea of complete nuclear disarmament and the idea of diplomacy with unfriendly nations. However, I find myself disapointed with Obama's address. He speaks to having to dal with the world the way it is and I understand that. However, part of engaging and changing the world is changing the tools we use to engage the world. President Obama inherited a way of engaging the world that was strongly biased toward the military. Instead of siezing the opportunity to change out direction, Obama chose to embrace and defend it.

Obama as Commander in Chief

If the reports that Obama has rejected all the options about Afghanistan that the military has presented are true, then this is good news. President Obama wants a plan that more effectively deals with the corruption in the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzi and a plan that includes a timeline for eventual turning over of the war to the Afghan army.

I am glad to to see President Obama exercising his authority over the military. Even though our society regular treats military leaders as dispassionate experts, it is worth noting that military leaders always have an agenda.

I am reminded of a story about how Franklin Roosevelt exercised his authority as commander in chief. During the early months of World War II, Roosevelt was embroiled in a debate with his top military commanders. President Roosevelt agreed with Winston Churchill and the British military that there should be an invasion of North Africa. The American military did not want to invade North Africa. Army generals wanted to invade Europe directly and they wanted to invade as soon as they could. Navy Admirals did not want to invade North Africa because they wanted the resources allocated for North Africa to be sent to fight Japan in the Pacific Theatre.

When the allied governments announced their intentions to invade North Africa, American generals and admirals got together and said that they could not support the plan and all the the resources should be diverted to the Pacific. Roosevelt called their bluff and told them to have a detailed plan to him the next morning. Since the military did not have a plan ready, the plan they produced was not very good. Roosevelt rejected the plan and ordered the military to go along with the invasion of North Africa.

Roosevelt knew what I hope Obama is learning and that is the military's agenda does not always coincide with what the President was elected to do.

Obama and Race

Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives decided to take some school bus bullying and use it to ratchet up racial tension in an effort to discredit President Obama. Limbaugh said, "In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering."

In the 7th grade I was the victim of bullying by some African American kids and I do think that race was a factor in the bullying. Due to court ordered busing, in 7th grade I attended a largely African American school located in a largely African American part of Jacksonville. At the time, I was a small, studious, shy white kid. What I think happened is these African American boys, like all bullies, felt comfortable enough to use physical violence on those they perceived as weaker or out of place. Those boys were on their home turf and they know how to maneuver around what was probably a badly administered school. They were, in effect, African-American boys who bullied white kids because in that environment being white marked people as a potential victim. Race was not the reason for the bullying but it played a factor in why people felt like they could bully and why certain other people were targeted for bullying.

By the way, this happened 20 years ago in the United States of George Herbert Walker Bush. I also know that in the administration of just about every President in American history, black people faced the very real possibility of being hung from a tree for any number of supposed transgressions against white people. The trajectory of American history is filled with racial tensions, and the majority of those tensions come from whites using threats and violence against people with black skin. Whatever violent talk or violent acts African Americans committed against white people came in large part as a response to a long history of whites using violence to prevent African Americans from gaining even a shred of basic human rights. I know that racial tensions exist and have exited throughout our nation's history.

I also know that conservatives will use racial tensions to benefit their own cause. This use of racial tensions is a long staple of southern politics and has been used on the national level since Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy." From Ronald Reagan's talk of "state's rights" in Philadelphia, Mississippi to Geroge H. W. Bush's use of Willie Horton to all the talk about welfare queens, conservatives have used racial tensions to achieve political power.

In my own memory, I can recall people I knew when I was in college in Mississippi during the mid 90s calling African Americans Democrats as a racial epitaph because all the white people voted Republican. I know the Republicans used the fact that Democrats removed the Confederate battle emblem from the Georgia state flag to gain full political power in 2002. I know that conservative Republicans in Augusta, Georgia supported a Democratic challenger for State Senate because the incumbent Republican supported the flag change.

Just in the past year, Rep. Lynn Westmorland(R-GA-3) called Obama "uppity." Just before President Obama spoke before Congress on healthcare Sen. Saxby Chambliss(R-GA), who during the 2008 election all but admitted that the core of his support came from white people opposed to African Americans gaining political power, said that Obama needed to express humility during his address. It is no wonder then that Rep. Joe Wilson(R-SC-2), a former aide to Strom Thurmond and who voted to keep the Confederate flag on top of the South Carolina Statehouse, would heckle Obama over a provision regarding illegal aliens.

Much of the vitriol directed as Obama is because of his race and considering the role race plays in American life and politics this should not be a surprise. That is the reality and it will be so as long as it pays off for public figures and politicians. The path to conservative power has for decades been through the use of racial tensions, and they will continue to stoke racial fears until it no longer works for them. Anyone claiming ignorance of this fact is being deliberately ignorant.

Healthcare Reform to the Max

Sen. Max Baucus(D-MN) finally is circulating his idea for healthcare reform and moderates appear to be gathering around a public option with a trigger that would go into effect if insurance companies fail to meet certain targets.  It now appears that the outlines of a healthcare deal appear to be in place.  After the craziness of August it is hard to believe that we are close to some type of deal but Jonathan Cohn explains how August affected the the political situation and how the odds of a bill being passed are unchanged and perhaps more likely.

Based on my studying of the issue, this is my guess as to what will happen.  A bill with a public option that has a trigger will pass.  The bill will increase Medicaid eligibility and will include an individual mandate.  To help people pay for the mandated insurance there will be subsidies of about 350% of poverty level.  There will also be an employer mandate and some type of insurance exchange that will allow individuals who don't get insurance from their employers, and small businesses, to have access to reasonably priced insurance.

I am not the first to suggest this but President Obama strikes me as someone who uses conservative means to achieve progressive ends.  As The American Prospect pointed out earlier this summer, Obama maintains a strong belief in the ability of American institutions to solve our country's problems.  As far as I can tell this belief includes the medical establishment in the U.S. 

The current reform proposals seek to keep the basics of our the employer based health insurance system but it wants to make the system achieve universal coverage and do it in a more efficient manor.

This is a far from perfect bill and it feels like a colossal disappointment when compared with what seemed possible at the beginning of the debate.  However if a bill like the one described above passes then it will be the most progressive legislation in a generation.  More important a bill that is successful and popular will set the stage for further progression towards public based universal healthcare.

The reality is that not all Democrats are liberal progressives.  Even though the Reagan era looks over, the Democrats are still struggling to posit a positive message about governments role in our society.  The most important thing this bill might do is to reverse the "government is the problem" mentality that marked the last 3 decades of political debate and restore the public's trust in the government's ability to pursue collective action for the public good  If the bill does that then it will be easier to move from this bill to an even more substantial reform of our healthcare system.  

BHO...

WTF.

Mr. President, if you do not think that the institutions that enshrine the values of our democracy our sufficient to tackle the demands posed by modern terrorism then what is the point of trying to defend those institutions?   

Political Frustration

Yesterday was one of those days that causes me to find politics frustrating.  First President Obama, along with Congressional leaders, announced an accelerated schedule for producing a health care bill.  This is a good development and it means that the chances of getting a health care bill through Congress are getting better.  One of the reasons I am a Democrat is the party's commitment to increasing health care coverage and this announcement is a good development towards that goal.

Then President Obama reversed an earlier decision and decided to block the release of photos that show the abuse of detainees being held by the U.S.  Sadly, President Obama defended his actions by using some defenses that must have been left over from the Bush administration.  This coupled with the Obama administration's announcement that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who has connections to detainee abuse and the Pat Tillman cover-up,  is slated to become the commander of forces in Afghanistan.  To me, this is proof that President Obama is taking ownerhip of many of Bush's policies and the march of empire continues on unabated.

In one day, I went from from feeling optimistic about the possibility of Congress passing a landmark piece of progressive legislation to despair over watching President Obama letting the march of empire continue.  Frustrating.      

Torture Memos

I blogged about the debate within the Obama administration about releasing a series of Bush administration legal memos that provided cover for Bush's torture program.  Today, President Obama ordered the memos released with only the names of CIA agents redacted.  

This is good news and given Obama's occasional embrace of Bush's legal justification's over stae secrets and various Bush anti-terror programs a bit of a surprise.   I think Obama is haltingly, and only with a strong push from civil libertarians, slowly moving towards establishing some accountability for Bush era torture.  This is a good decision and should spur us to continue to push more transparency and accountability.  

Unacceptable

The fact that the Obama administration is using still using Bush administration state secrets arguments and is using the Patriot Act to expend government secrecy is simply unacceptable.  Torture and illegality thrive in secrecy.  Obama was elected on a promise of transparency and to end Bush's trashing of civil liberties.  If he continues down this path he will break those promises.

"Holy Hell"

This is what has broken loose in the Obama Administration over a decision to release the torture memos.  According to Michael Isikoff, the Obama administration is divided over releasing memos that provided legal approval for many aspects of the CIA's torture program.  Attorney General Eric Holder approved the decision but White House national security aide John Brennan is working to reverse Holder's decision.  Brennan is a noted supporter of Bush's torture policies and his concern is that public disclosure of these memos will lead foreign allies who participated in various programs to feel embarrassed.

President Obama needs to step in and order the release of these memos.  Some shame and embarrassment is miniscule compared to the actual pain inflicted by torture and a small price to pay for conducting a torture program.

Fire the Bankers

Yesterday we learned that President Obama's chief economic advisor, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers, received about 5.2 million dollars in compensation from a hedge fund.  Today we learned that the Obama administration is trying to establish its bailout programs in such a way as to avoid many rules that Congress imposed on companies that receive bailout money.  Some of these rules include restrictions on executive pay for companies that get federal money.  This week new reports also told us that Wall Street firms are planning on using some bailout money to buy assets from their troubled Wall Street Competitors.

One of the Obama administration's faults is that it is too close to Wall Street Financiers. Early in his first term Bill Clinton followed Robert Rubin's advice and focused on deficit reduction and since then the Democratic Party has grown closer to Wall Street interests and this is a problem.  

Part of the financial crisis is due to large Wall Street investment banks that grew "too big to fail."  They grew this during way in part during the Clinton administration and the deregulation legislation favored by Treasury Secretaries Rubin and Summers.  Now Summers is back in the government after making million on Wall Street.  Current Treasury Secretary Time Geithner is a Summers acolyte and spent his entire career as a civil servant but he is connected with many of the government officials whose policies led to this fiasco.  

President Obama needs to realize that it is not enough to restore Wall Street to health.  He and his administration need to restore balance between the financial sector and the rest of the country.  He can't do this if he keeps the same people in place that got us into this mess.  I am not ready to call for Geithner's resignation and I am skeptically optimistic about his public/private plan to deal with troubled Wall Street firms.  However, Lawrence Summers has got to go and go now.

This imbalance and perceived favoritism toward Wall Street will doom a lot of needed future recovery programs.  President Obama needs to get rid of those helped bring on this crisis, he needs to listen to those who warned what was going on, and he needs to guard against any real or perceived bias in favor of Wall Street firms.

Failure to do this, I fear, will lead to a nationwide recovery becoming merely just a Wall Street Recovery.   

Obama's Preachers

The New York Times has an article  about the 5 men who serve as President Obama's spiritual advisors.  The 5 men are either centrist or evangelical with a concern for social justice issues.  One of the men is Otis Moss whose son is now the pastor of Trinity UCC where Obama was a member.  There does not appear to be anyone with a strong connection to the religious right.

However, there are no women and no strongly progressive Christians.  I am afraid that these omissions will reinforce Obama's centrist and conformists tendencies.  I can see Obama making  a strong stand on poverty issues but I can also see a cautious stance on cultural issues like abortion and especially GLBT equality.  I am also sad that this will continue to reinforce the popular image that there are no progressive Christians and evangelicals with a social justice bent are the true "religious left."

The absence of progressive Christians does give those of us religious left the chance to use our outsider status to continue to speak truth to and pressure those in power.  Without being in the center of power I hope progressive Christians will use their voice to continue to critique the dominant culture even if someone we consider one of us is leading it.  

Getting Over It

Andrew Manis was one of my seminary professors, is an award winning writer, and is a person I greatly admire.  He wrote this op-ed on whether Obama's election really marks the end of racism.  Andy wrote an award winning biography of Birmingham's Fred Shuttleworth, and racism and civil rights are his areas of expertise.  You can order the the Shuttlesworth biography here.

"On Our Terms"

President Obama orders Guantanamo and other CIA "black site" prisons closed.  During the ceremony, President Obama said we are going to win the fight against terrorism "on our terms."  This is great news because we had been dealing with terrorism on the terms set out by the Gestapo, the KGB, and the Khmer Rouge. 

As far as I am concerned, Obama can take the rest of the year off and he will still be considered a success.