The Big Question

As usual, E.J. Dionne poses the critical political question: will the young people who voted overwhelmingly for Obama when he represented hope and change stay around to support him–and the Democratic party–now that the hard work of governing has highlighted philosophical and tactical differences of opinion on how best to proceed?

Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster, offered a straightforward formula: “When Republican voters and older voters get angry, they vote,” she said. “When younger voters get angry, they stay home.” Thomas Bates, vice president for civic engagement at Rock the Vote, a group that mobilizes young Americans to go to the polls, shares Lake’s worries. “For people who were energized in 2008, it was a time of hope and optimism,” he said. “And when you get to the brass tacks of governing, the atmosphere in the process of legislating has become poisonous. That makes political engagement as unappealing as possible.” More than is often appreciated, the electoral revolution that brought Democrats to power was fueled by a younger generation with a distinctive philosophical outlook. Put starkly: If only Americans 45 and over had cast ballots in 2008, Barack Obama would not be president.

 

Is Obama’s Nobel Prize Unconstitutional?

That’s the argument some right-wing lawyers are making. My own reaction was not dissimilar to that of the Florida congressman who said “If Obama cured world hunger, the Republicans would accuse him of causing overpopulation.”

Jack Balkin, the eminent Yale legal scholar who blogs at balkinization, says it more eloquently–and more authoritatively.

This episode has led me to two conclusions. First, the Washington Post Op-Ed section does not appear to have a lawyer on hand to keep it from embarrassment. It does not take much research to discover that the argument in this piece is frivolous. But no research was done.

Second, I have noticed an increasing lack of seriousness among some members of the modern conservative movement. We see it in the tea party protests, in the work of talk show hosts and political commentators, but now even in the work of accomplished lawyers and intellectuals who should know better. It is one thing to disagree with a sitting president’s policies, but in our deeply polarized and poisonous political environment, an increasing number of politicians, operatives, and intellectuals now proclaim almost reflexive opposition to anything associated with President Obama or anything he does, says, or supports. Indeed, in this case, Rotunda and Pham have gone well past arguing that things that President Obama favors are unconstitutional; now they argue that things are unconstitutional because somebody wants to honor him.

It is increasingly difficult to parody what politicians and intellectuals will now say or do. Anything one can think of is already topped by the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal editorial pages.

This may be good politics, but I doubt it. It is certainly not sound legal argument.

We Seem to be Going in the Wrong Direction

Is there something in the water?

In Louisiana, a Justice of the Peace refuses to perform inter-racial weddings, insisting that such “racial mixing” produces children who are not accepted by either whites or blacks.

In Paraguay, two women were tortured and killed after being accused of being witches. According to reports, Dorotea Colmán, 50, and María Espínola, 23, died after being submitted to three days of brutal torture by members of the Bya Guaraní ethnic group in Santa Lucía, 220 miles north of Asunción. The women were hung upside down, beaten with sticks and had boiling water poured on them.

In Congress, we are regularly treated to comments by elected officials– Michele Bachman and someone named King from Iowa come to mind, but there are plenty of others–that are not simply stupid (that would be a very long list!) but paranoid and delusional.

Anyone have an explanation for this explosion of irrational behaviors?

Maybe in this age of blogging and 24/7 news cycles, we’re just more aware of crazies who’ve always been around. I hope that’s the answer, because otherwise, I feel as if I went to bed in the 21st Century and awoke in the 16th.

Clean Water, Vibrant City

I often read the Urbanophile’s blog; he has a good grasp of urban issues, and generally includes a wealth of data and perceptive commentary. In this post, he tells us about an ambitions program that–if successful–will yield benefits to the environment AND to city life. Worth pondering.

Obama and Gay Rights

As was evident in yesterday’s March on Washington, many members of the gay community are angry that the Obama Administration has not yet acted on several promises to advance equality for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. The general sentiment is: yes, you talk the talk. But where’s the walk?

Others–generally those who have worked on these issues for many years–recognize that  actually achieving these changes is more complicated than the critics seem to understand.

Legal change almost always lags cultural change. That’s because legislatures and even the courts (angry accusations about “socialist” policymakers and “imperial” courts notwithstanding) rarely act until something like a social consensus emerges. Nor can a President unilaterally make most changes. And even when a President can act without Congress, through Executive Order, there are legislative consequences to be expected.

The impatience displayed by many of yesterday’s marchers is understandable. It’s like being told that “if you just stay in the back of the bus a bit longer” America is more likely to get health care and environmental protection. Why should their rights be held in thrall to other goals?

My own analysis is somewhat different. Barack Obama is one of the most strategic politicians to come along in my lifetime. I believe him when he says–as he did at the HRC dinner–that he is committed to achieving equal rights for the GLBT community. And I believe he will do so in his first term. But there are two things any constituency needs from its political champions: sincere commitment and the strategic smarts to actually get something done. I think Clinton had the commitment; but he couldn’t get it done.  He faced a culture that was not ready, and his approach to the issue of gays in the military was badly timed. I think Obama knows how to get things done–even very difficult things. He is asking the gay community to trust him.

It’s easy for me to say, of course–I’m not gay. But I DO trust him. And those of my friends who’ve been long-time activists on behalf of GLBT  rights, people who know how tough these fights still are, trust him too.