Author Archives: Sheila

The Sad Demise of the GOP?

I was an active, committed Republican for 35 years. I worked in a Republican city administration; I ran for Congress as a Republican, and I was “mainstream” enough to win a four-person primary. That was in 1980.

Over the years, the GOP drifed ever further from the principles that had attracted me. A principled concern with limiting the authority of government morphed into a belief that government could and should do nothing. (The sole exception being the imposition of conservative Christian prohibitions on personal sexual and reproductive behavior.) Wariness about large-scale government welfare programs became full-throated support for corporate welfare and welfare for the rich at the expense of the most vulnerable. Belief in separation of church and state disappeared. 

I just read that, in Alabama, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bradley Byrne got himself into trouble by publicly stating, “I believe there are parts of the Bible that are meant to be literally true and parts that are not.” This evidently was enough to derail his statewide campaign. Byrne has since backpedaled, assuring voters, “I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it.”

Why in the world is a candidate for Governor even talking about his religious beliefs? Absent a belief in ritual murder or something similar, what difference should it make to voters?

Over at Political Animal, Steve Benen recently reported on the ever-more-radical Tea Party contingent of the GOP. ”

Today’s Republican establishment is, as far as this crowd is concerned, a bunch of sellouts. Just as the Republican Party has become as far-right and stridently ideological as it’s ever been, this still-fringe “movement” insists even conservatives aren’t conservative enough.

We’re talking about a well-intentioned, passionate, and deeply confused group of people — the folks who believe Democrats are “fascists,” the president is Hitler, and programs like Social Security and Medicare are socialist, unconstitutional boondoggles that need to be abolished — who are now intent on dragging an already far-right party over the cliff.

There’s nothing wrong with passionate citizens getting involved in the political process. But the American mainstream may not appreciate the fact that uninformed crazies — who think death panels are real, but global warming isn’t — intend to take over the Republican infrastructure, more than they already have.

Under normal circumstances, the American mainstream would see this and be repelled in the other direction. A Republican brand that was already in tatters after the extraordinary and spectacular failures of Bush, Cheney, DeLay, et al, would suffer in the eyes of the public as the right-wing fringe gained more influence.

But that’s what makes 2010 dangerous — the mainstream doesn’t realize the radical nature of the Tea Party “movement”; Democratic voters feel underwhelmed by the pace of progress; and the electorate may very well reward radicalization.

The consequences of the rise of nihilists are hard to predict, but the possibilities are chilling.”

He’s right, but even if the radical takeover of the GOP has the more likely effect of keeping it a minority party for the foreseeable future, America will have lost something really important. We need both parties. We need reasoned disagreement over policy. We need an effective opposition party that keeps the party in power on its toes. We need grownups participating in the political process.

I can still remember when being a member of the Republican Party was respectable, but my grandchildren don’t.

Comments

The Marrying Kind

Here’s a quick quiz. Who said this?

“Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation’s commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.”

If you guessed this was part of a press release from HRC or Lambda, or a statement by a Democratic Congressman from a really safe district, you’d be wrong. This was from a recent Newsweek  column penned by none other than Theodore Olsen, the very conservative former Solicitor General who was also the lead lawyer representing George W. Bush before the Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore.

As readers of this column undoubtedly know, Olsen has teamed with his erstwhile opponent in that lawsuit, David Boies, to challenge the constitutionality of Proposition 8.

When these two formed their unlikely team and announced their decision to challenge the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage, I’ll admit I was torn.

On the one hand, these are two of the pre-eminent lawyers in the country—not only can we have confidence that the legal and constitutional arguments will be made forcefully, thoroughly and competently, but there is tremendous value in the symbolism of having such established (and establishment), highly respected legal figures as proponents of equality for same-sex couples. On the other hand, this is a case that is intended to go all the way to the Supreme Court, where victory will be anything but assured and defeat would set back the cause of gay rights for a generation.  Even a victory in the Supreme Court would undoubtedly bring backlash, and the predictable howls of the right-wing fringe about “imperial” courts and “unelected judges.”

So I was wary.

But the more I think about it, the less worried I am. First of all, as I have documented in past columns in these pages, the pace at which the culture is changing is breathtaking. It takes a long time for a case to work its way up to the Supreme Court—time during which those changes will continue, and the idea of same-sex marriage will seem less and less remarkable. Already, the popular culture is discounting the arguments against such marriages, particularly the allegation that permitting same-sex marriage will somehow harm “traditional” unions. As Olsen wrote,

“Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.”

 Interestingly, pollster extraordinaire Nate Silver has crunched some numbers and come to a conclusion that undercuts assertions that same-sex marriage is detrimental to heterosexual marriage.

 “Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.”

 It takes time for the conventional wisdom to reflect such data. But if we doubt that conventional wisdom is now on the side of equality, we have one more bit of evidence from the Proposition 8 trial: The witnesses set to testify in defense of Proposition 8 have asked the Court to keep the media out. They claim they will be “endangered” if their identities are known. Really? These people base their defense of Proposition 8 on their assertion that tradition and morality and public opinion are on their side. If that is so, why not speak out publicly? Why not bask in the approval of the public? The only possible answer is: the public’s opinion has changed.

 And that is cause for celebration. Hopefully, wedding celebrations.

Comments

Happily Ever After

The last time I babysat my younger grandchildren, we watched one of those age-appropriate Hollywood fairy tales where the good guy defeats the bad guy and then the story ends because—it is understood by all, even five-year olds—that everyone will now live happily ever after.

 Many Americans apply that simple fantasy to politics: once we elect the “good guy,” the story’s over. If we’ve elected the “bad guy,” the story’s still over, but with an unhappy ending.  This childlike belief explains much irrationality on both the right and left a scant year after Obama’s election.  

 Tea party “patriots” and the right-wing fringe are screaming that health-care reform is a Nazi plot and Obama will single-handedly destroy America. Their left-wing counterparts charge Obama with “selling out” to the power structure because he has yet to fulfill all his campaign promises or solve all of America’s problems.

 This may come as something of a shock to both groups, but real life doesn’t work that way. Changing the course of institutions—particular large, entrenched ones—is extremely difficult. Systems matter, and they can favor or smother efforts to change direction for good or ill.

Constitutional constraints on government power are important in a nation that values the rule of law. As the old saying goes, one person’s accountability is another’s red tape. Achieving a workable balance is an ongoing challenge. But political systems also create roadblocks that are neither constitutionally required nor democratically sound.

Let me offer a very few examples.

Gerrymandering frustrates efforts to create a more competitive political playing field, and protects incumbents from constituents who want to retire them. In the Senate, filibusters—as we have seen—allow legislative minorities to frustrate the efforts of majorities, even when those majorities represent overwhelming percentages of the population. Our system gives every state, no matter how thinly or densely populated, two Senators. You can argue the pros and cons of such a system, but love it or hate it, it’s the system we have. As a result, a couple hundred voters from Montana have the power to frustrate a million from California or Texas. One Joe Lieberman can frustrate an entire nation.

The Senate also observes quaint and arguably indefensible “traditions” like the one that allows any Senator to put a hold on any Presidential nomination for any reason. Recently, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl decided to show his displeasure with a delay in the enforcement of internet gambling prohibitions. So he put a hold on six of the Administration’s pending nominations to fill positions in the Treasury Department. No one has a problem with the people who’ve been nominated, mind you. But because Jon Kyl wants action on internet gambling, the Treasury Department is operating without needed management personnel during a global economic meltdown.

The moral of this story? Systems matter, and many of ours are broken.

As a result, even when a “good guy” wins, “happily ever after” is likely to fall far short of our fantasies.

This Was a SCIENCE Teacher??!

According to the New York Daily News, a Brooklyn principal has reprimanded a sixth-grade teacher for selling students a book that tells how to “recognize those serving Satan and bring them to Jesus.”

Steven Arizmendi sold “He Came to Set the Captives Free” to four of his students at Junior High School 220 in Sunset Park for $5 apiece. The science teacher also loaned copies of the evangelical novel to eight students.

Fact-Check the Talking Heads

One of the most persistent complaints about broadcast journalism–a complaint that comes from both left and right–is the practice on shows like Meet the Press, Face the Nation, This Week, etc. of asking questions of their guests, allowing those guests to answer, and then moving on to the next question. The hosts rarely  challenge even the most obvious fabrications, exaggerations and spin. They rarely follow up a question with another, deeper one.

These exercises do little more than allow politicians to pontificate. They reiterate their talking points, confident that they will not be called out. Jay Rosen has a better idea:

NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen tweeted an idea about improving the Sunday morning talk shows. He says the programs, rather than letting politicians get away with distortions, should offer an online fact check each week of exaggerations and lies. For the guests, says Rosen, the format beckons them to evade, deny, elide, demagogue and confuse, but then they pay for it later if they give into temptation and make that choice. 

Something along these lines would certainly do wonders for the credibility of our increasingly feckless pundits.