Early and Often

The night before the l994 Republican sweep of both Houses of Congress, Mary Matalin in a CNN interview said that her party was well organized and would win big. She was right on both counts. The host responded by suggesting that a low turnout would benefit Republicans, a logical assumption with which Ms Matalin strongly disagreed, evidence of the then current sanctity of a high voter turnout.

My how things have changed! Now newly elected Tea Party sponsored governors and state legislators are openly attempting to discourage disenfranchised and minority voters, people who tend to vote Democratic, with unprecedented and unfair voter ID requirements. The pretext for this is alleged voter fraud which, from what’s been proved, is in the low single digits in even in the most populous voting districts.

An increased voter turnout, while not a certainty, is a likely consequence of Occupy Wall Street. Some previous voters in this group may choose to abstain given the results produced by the current crop of office holders. But the people now in the streets are young, bright and, above all concerned. I don’t see many of them sitting out Election Day. The fact that the criticism is coming from the political right, i.e. Fox News, strongly suggests the direction of the movement. Given a choice between Obama, Romney and a third party candidate I see the president coming off with a majority, the size being the only question.

Right wing criticism of OWS has made so many different disparaging connections that it’s hard to keep track of them. The only one with a superficial resemblance is with the hippie’s of the “60s and early ‘70s whose main cause was opposition to the Vietnam War. Of course there were others. Remember the Symbionese Liberation Army, whatever it stood for? But it was opposition to the war that gave the movement respectability. If you question this just think   “domino theory”

Those protests slowed and stopped in tandem with the Vietnam War. Today’s OWS people are victims of a system tailored to the benefit of corporate bandits that has left them with bleak prospects, possibly for a lifetime. The system and the thieves won’t be going away on their own any time soon. Neither will the victims.

Wall Street to Main Street

My last letter, in late September, dealt with the lack of media coverage of the current anti Wall Street movement. Since that time the bulk of news coverage has dealt with two subjects. One is the Republican Presidential debates to which I say that any subject involving reference to Herman Cain as a potential president is absurd by definition. The other is the move front and center by “Occupy Wall Street.” It is a development of such potentially monumental proportions that I’ve been hesitant to comment on it, other than to wish the participants the best.

That was until last night when I heard Michael Moore advising the protestors not to limit their demands to financial reform, but to go for the whole ball of wax in correcting the nation’s ills. I disagree, not with his opinion on these subjects of course, but with this tactic. The new crowd has a powerful single issue, particularly as more people realize that they are among the 99% who don’t benefit from the status quo. Try arguing gun control with someone as upset as you, but who insists on a person’s right to carry a gun into a bar from which he might not be allowed to drive home .You’ve lost him right off the bat. There’s even a plank in the Tea Party platform condemning Wall Street for the TARP bailout, conveniently blaming Democratic support in Congress. This reasoning conveniently ignores the fact that President George W. Bush requested and set it up during the last four months of his administration.

Critics accuse these people of advocating redistribution of wealth. But every change in our fiscal structure does just that. As time passes, even the time between now and the election, more voters will realize that for the past thirty years wealth has been redistributed in the direction of those who need it least. Simple arithmetic says that the redistribution should be reversed. The question is how much? Is it too much to ask the very richest Americans, whose annual income exceeds what most of us consider commensurate with a high life style, to pay higher taxes on only their excess income. The answer depends on the size of that marginal increase, but clearly something beyond single digits

The same people speak of this new movement as socialistic and it may be; but no more so than laws that were enacted as a consequence of the Great Depression and served us well until they were repealed when America began to feel good about itself. Too good! The hair of the dog may be OK for an occasional hangover, but this one is now a binge that has lasted too long. There’s a time for the bartender to eighty six the worst drunks and that time is now.

The Street

Unless you’re one of those bleeding heart liberals who tune in to MSNBC, you may not know that there have been hundreds of people literally on the street, Wall Street, peacefully protesting what they consider the wrongs being committed by the lords inside those proximate hallowed halls. The press in general has paid scant, if any, attention, including that left wing bastion, the New York Times which covered it on page 18 of Thursday’s edition under “Local” news. The contrast in media coverage between this and Tea Party demonstrations is striking. Suspicious minds might even conclude that the media as a whole are biased to the right rather than left, as the Philistines claim.
 
There is visual evidence of police misconduct, something well short of the Rodney King episode, but still inappropriate and unwarranted. Minor beatings and pepper sprayings of individuals to whom a particular cop may have taken a dislike have been recorded. The commissioner of the city’s Police Department, in support of his troops, has criticized the protestors for “tumultuous conduct.” Heavens! I just hope they didn’t use obscenities.
 
Nothing of this restrictive nature seems to happen at Tea Party shenanigans even though many demonstrators have been pictured holding guns. Of course they weren’t loaded and there’s not a shred of evidence that the demonstrators’ conduct was tumultuous.
 
A viewer seeing both types of rallies must notice that the Tea Partiers are considerably longer in the tooth. My thinking is since they’re now getting what they’ve paid for from a system that was working, they’re obsessed with the possibility of having to pay one red cent, because changing circumstances may demand it, in order to give someone else’s offspring opportunities equivalent to what they had.
 
The battle lines have been drawn and, in my admittedly biased opinion, I think it’s the right wing that has drawn them. They may win the battle next year. But there’s no question who will win the war. It’s only a question of when.

Annie Rides Again

Back in the 1950s Al Capp, giving his reasons for allowing Daisy Mae to marry Lil Abner, mentioned a rival comic strip featuring “an orphan who spoke like the Republican platform of 1928.” Well folks; Orphan Annie has been reincarnated, and not surprisingly, in the form of the entire Republican Party. The common denominator is the claim that American business needs fewer, not more, regulations and should be left to its own devices. “Small” is the adjective of choice in referring to business. This is either a euphemism or a lie, take your pick.

The word “regulations” is being used by Annie’s disciples in a tone that makes it sound like a profanity. Regulations, rules or laws, call them what you will, have always been with us, and not necessarily to our benefit. A strong argument can be made, with which I agree, against our legal position on marijuana. On the other hand I doubt that the most fanatical libertarian would call for eliminating traffic lights.

Back in Annie’s day a grossly unequal share of the wealth resulting from unbridled laissez faire didn’t shake voters’ faith in Herbert Hoover’s promise of “a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage.” A couple of years later, when even rich folks started jumping out of tall buildings, people realized that something was very wrong so they made rules to prevent a repeat performance.

Years later Annie made her first reincarnation in the form of a Hollywood actor and started convincing us that these rules were no longer necessary. Eventually it became evident that she was wrong again, except for folks like her Daddy Warbucks (a well chosen name) who haven’t been jumping out of buildings. In fact they’re doing quite nicely thank you.

Of course the financial community still has some regulations. Embezzlement is frowned on in courts of law and apprehended violators generally do jail time. But Daddy Warbucks and his friends have avoided the hoosegow and are now busily comparison shopping for their most practical items, members of Congress. Annie should be so proud!   

A bit of trivia: Al Capp subsequently inserted Orphan Annie type characters in Lil Abner. Daddy Warbucks was “Uncle Sawbuck” and his assistant was “Franklin Finog,” spelled backwards Gonif, Yiddish for thief.

Not To Be Spoken

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one term president.” It’s common knowledge that these words were spoken by Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell.  This is hardly an unthinkable thought. I wouldn’t be surprised if throughout our history a majority of Congress has felt this way about a first term president from the opposing party.  But to my knowledge it has been an unspeakable thought for someone of this prominence who can be considered as spokesman for his political party.
 
It’s easy to see that under normal circumstances this statement could put Mr. McConnell out on a limb. After all there are legislative decisions that might conceivably benefit the nation during Obama’s tenure and, in the process, enhance his reelection prospects. The words “single and most important thing” are unequivocal as to how Republican Senators should vote in such situations if they followed instructions as they have been doing. Our history is replete with unspoken conflicts of this nature in both political parties with the nation often getting the short end of the stick.
 
But to my knowledge this candor from someone so high in our legislative hierarchy is a first of its kind. It was no slip of the tongue and raises the question of why McConnell would break precedent and run the risk of confirming doubts on the integrity of votes from members of his party. It’s one thing not to play by the rules, or at least the pretense of rules. It’s quite another to defiantly announce that you intend to break them.
 
To me the answer is that he thought he could get away with it. Subsequent events have proven him right. This leads to another question. How did he know he could publicly and blatantly flaunt President Barack Hussein Obama without adverse consequences? Need I answer this question?
 
Maybe we should be appreciative of McConnell for his honesty. My personal take, to borrow a phrase from the British, is that if this is loyal opposition I shudder to think of the alternative.
 
 

The Greater Evil

It’s human nature for people of a political persuasion to hope that the least electable candidate represents the opposition. A graphic example is the Nixon campaign in 1972. The “dirty tricks” against his moderate opponents, Muskie and Humphrey, were well chronicled in the Senate Watergate hearings. Few people seemed to notice that George McGovern’s name was not among the victims. The fact may be forgotten or not even known by many. But during the primary season when he was unopposed, Nixon donors were instructed to send their donations to George McGovern.*  By this standard, as a Democrat I should be hoping for the nomination of Rick Perry, now that the GOP field seems to be distilling to two candidates. This is not the case.
 
I’m not an admirer of “Mitt” Romney and will not vote for him in the general election. Like all Republicans he is a candidate of money, although the same can be said of most prominent politicians including, to a lesser extent, Barack Obama. Unfortunately that’s the way our system works. But in Rick Perry I see more than avarice. I sense meanness.
 
“Sense” is by definition subjective. Mine is based in part on his answer to a question by the moderator in a recent candidate debate, as to his feelings about the disproportionally high number of executions in his state. His answer, that anyone who killed someone in Texas deserved to pay with his or her life, was followed by wildly enthusiastic audience response. It ignored the point of the question which didn’t concern the death penalty itself, but the justice of the convictions.  
 
I’ve referred several times to Barry Goldwater and what a majority of voters considered his off the wall ideas. But most of us who voted against him didn’t feel he was mean, only wrong. Perry, in promoting his recent Jesus fest on TV, blubbered like Jimmy Swaggart every time he mentioned “Jesus.” Having heard him speak on non religious issues, and looking at his eyes as he spoke, I consider this man incapable of any kind of humility.
 
If cross party voting in primaries were possible in the state in which I vote I’d be a Republican for a day and cast an enthusiastic vote for Romney. Given the quality of candidates generally, for many of us voting is a question of the lesser of evils. In my judgment no serious candidate, or even some of the frivolous ones, is as great an evil as Rick Perry, who just might become President of the United States of America.
 
 
 
 
*I heard this point confirmed, voluntarily and defiantly by Pat Buchanan, a minor player in the saga, late in the Senate Watergate hearings. During that primary season I was hired to provide a band for three McGovern rallies, after which I was assured of the same job in the fall before the general election. You might guess what happened, actually didn’t happen, and why.
 
 

The Song Is Ended

I am a card carrying Democrat who has voted for every Democratic presidential candidate since Adlai Stevenson. I intend to vote for Barack Obama, despite being disappointed with his presidency. One reason can be summed up by five names; Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, Roberts and Alito. Another is the caliber of the current potential opponents. All are certifiable fruitcakes with the exception of a former Utah Governor whose GPS appears to have malfunctioned and a former Massachusetts Governor who has yet to locate the center of gravity.   

Barack Obama has some accomplishments to his credit, such as resuscitating the auto industry and changing the military’s policy on gays. But these are fringe issues compared to the more important ones on which he has attempted little if anything. On the environment the flat earth types still hold sway and our unbalanced tax code is fundamentally unchanged.

The capitulation to raise the debt ceiling is was inexcusable. To give in to the legislative demands of a political party threatening the solvency of the nation was a craven concession to blackmail.  Common sense should tell us that this same tactic will be repeated the next time the ceiling needs to be raised, unless the president at the time happens to be a Republican. Obama declined the preferable options of calling the blackmailers’ bluff or invoking the part of the 14^th Amendment that says that the validity of the public debt “shall not be questioned.”  

Many of his former supporters complain that Obama should be more like Truman. The short answer is that he’s not Truman, nor was any intervening president. It can be added that no person of color could have become president behaving as Truman, who even his critics never claimed to be anything other than “true blue” in ethnicity and religion. Barack Obama may be more articulate than any president my lifetime, a gift that has value in explaining issues to the electorate. Yet some of his most important decisions have been a major disappointment to those of us who had such hopes when we voted for him. Facility with words is an important quality for the presidency. But to paraphrase an Irving Berlin lyric, when the song is ended it’s the melody that lingers on.