Obama – Page 14 – Sheila Kennedy

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.

The Pace of Progress

Civil rights activists often disagree over tactics. That was (and is) true of the African-American civil rights movement, and similar disputes characterize those working for equal rights for women, Latinos and other minorities. So it should not surprise anyone that gay rights activists often disagree about where resources should be deployed and when, or whether to be confrontational or to work behind the scenes.

There aren’t “good guys” and “bad guys” in most of these debates—just idealistic people of good will who have different ideas about the best way to proceed.

The most recent evidence of such disagreement was this fall’s March on Washington. It is no secret that many people in the so-called “gay establishment”—HRC comes to mind—were less than thrilled at the prospect of diverting energy and resources from places like Maine, where the recent recognition of same-sex marriage faces a Proposition 8-like repeal effort. (HRC did get on board when it became obvious the March would be held, but its early reluctance was hardly a secret. Barney Frank never did support it.)

At the March itself, another fault-line became evident.

Many members of the gay community are clearly angry that the Obama Administration has not yet acted on several promises to advance equality for gays, lesbians and transgendered people. A number of those who delivered speeches at the March made their displeasure very clear. The general sentiment was: yes, you talk the talk. But where’s the walk?

Others–generally those who have worked on equality issues for many years and who are all too familiar with the political barriers that have to be dealt with–believe that actually achieving these changes is more complicated than the critics seem to understand. They are impatient with impatience.

As a recovering lawyer, I am painfully aware that legal changes almost always lag cultural ones. That’s because legislatures and even the courts (angry accusations about “socialist” policymakers and “imperial” courts notwithstanding) rarely act until something akin to 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 the Washington 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 GLBT rights be held in thrall to other goals? What’s the point of having political capital if you don’t spend it?

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 was ahead of his time, for one thing; the culture was not quite ready. But he also made a tactical error; his approach to the issue of gays in the military was clumsy and badly timed. I think Obama knows how to get things done–even very difficult things.

Basically, Obama 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.

We may be wrong–only time will tell. But when Obama says he’ll get it done during his first term, I believe him.

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.

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.

This Says It All

I was about to post on the surprising award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama when I read this.

It expresses my own thoughts on the matter, and does it better than I could.