photocredit: zenobia_joy

In a recent poll, 61% don’t think the economy has improved during Obama’s watch. Only 41% believe he is doing a good job on the economy. This is in spite of a stimulus bill and a full-court press partnership with the Federal Reserve that has, according to most economists, staved off a second Great Depression, and has turned devastating monthly job losses into meager, but encouraging, job gains. Who’s to blame for this public thumbs down? The administration, of course.

One of the most subtle tasks as president is setting the tone of public discourse. As the nation’s leader, and the most visible and powerful American alive, the president must not only manage his own message, but nudge the debate around him toward favorable lighting. One of the most effective communicators the campaign trail has ever seen has been unable to do either.

The problem for Democrats this fall is two-fold: a Republican party that has put a good-enough spin on the decrepit state of their political existence and turned it into an asset, opting for the “body in the hallway” approach to legislating (“We were sleeping in the hallway when this all happened–don’t blame us!”); and a Democratic party with phenomenal legislative successes that is unable to go past limping speed. Considering this situation it’s easy to understand why Congressman Anthony Weiner of NY lambasted Republicans for objecting to a bill providing health services to those affected by the 9/11 (Video here). He verbalized what many observers are thinking: Obstructionism is lazy and irresponsible, and Republicans are getting away with it.

The burden of proof is on the Democrats. They need to be their own best cheerleaders. They need to be proud enough of their achievements for us to believe they are doing something worth applauding.

Their achievements thus far are more substantial that any other Congress in recent memory in such a short amount of time. Yet, hearing them talk about those victories, and the election season they are in, you’d think they were ashamed of themselves, crossing their fingers that voters will still like them in November.

Democrats need to be more like Republicans: cheer twice for themselves, then cheer again for good measure! Democrats, in particular the president, cannot hide behind their accomplishments. They need to be in front of them, touting their horn and instilling pride in their sympathetics. The Iraq War is beginning it’s end. That is worth cheering about. The economy is stumbling, but not near the cliff’s edge anymore. That is worth cheering about. No one else will communicate that message for the Dems. And no one wants to vote for the sheepish guy.

You might want to check these out, too:

• ObamaCare Part II: Push, Pull or Drag it to the Finish Line.
• The Blame Game
• The liberal agenda needs unity
• Don’t expect 2010 to be 1994. Part 2: Healthcare

photocredit: meddygarnet

Audre Lorde, a Caribbean-American writer, was one of the most outspoken members of the third wave of feminism. She was often cast as an “outsider” within the small cadre of feminist writers, mainly because she added a racial component to women studies. She believed that to overlook the difference between the plight of white women and black women was another form of patriarchal oppression. A racial slave-master relationship within the gender slave-master relationship. She also believed feminism should derive its power from without, not within, since:

The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house.

These were powerful words then, and today. It not only speaks to the power of traditions and social structures, but to any social element.

The social power of something (be they institutions, parties, laws, or words) is mainly derived from its context and its history. Each of these elements have their own baggage, from the past and present.

There is an ongoing debate on where the power of words comes from. A simple string of words can be as influential in our society as a public demonstration or the passage of a law. They are bricks that build the house. Racial epithets, labels, curse words, categories, or even trend-setting words are like social dynamos that build and change our social web in real-time.

Racial slurs, for example, carry a lot of weight for most people. They not only embody the cutting word, but the history attached to its existence, the consequences of it being said in the past, and the “meaning” behind its utterance. Most of its power is related to its intention: “nigger”, which has a lot of negative racial history can be used by the African-American community as a term of endearment or familiarity; a gay man calling a gay friend a “queen” is different than when the word is uttered by a homophobic stranger. It’s the context, coupled with the history, that tells you what the word truly “means.” Because of this complexity, many believe those words should not be said at all, by anyone. Any word that has the potential of offending someone should be banned from our daily discourse.

Late comedian Lenny Bruce used to use racist labels in his shows all the time. He would start by pointing out the various minorities and white members in the audience, and calling them by their corresponding racist terms, sometimes to their face. Then he would stop, crack up, and shake hands with the audience members. According to Lenny, saying them out loud for no real reason removed the power behind those words. The context of uneasiness was gone; it was just another word. What we brought with us when we said the word is what made it a potent derisive.

Feminists and gays often try to “take back” a word: cunt, fag, bitch. It is their word, and they want to be able to use it on their terms, without outsiders using it against them. Sort of like the example above with the African-American community: they want the word to mean what they want it to mean.

The question that follows these lines of reasoning is: can these tools dismantle the house? Can these words, rejiggered, be used to mend problems like racism, sexism, and homophobia? Can words like “hick” or “ghetto” help fix classism in our society? Or are they all a part of the problem? Should we start anew with our vocabulary, or possibly cleanse it of the problem words in there already?

When consensus gives a word a positive connotation (“patriotism,” ” courage,”  ”genius,”  ”excellence”), these can be used for constructive or destructive aims, as well.

The label of “genius” is widely debated, and when given to someone there is no shortage of dissenters. What makes genius? Is it early shows of brilliance, or a capacity to adapt and evolve to unparalleled heights. Is Pablo Picasso a genius for emerging as a young and innovative painter, or is Paul Cezanne the genius as a late bloomer that learned progressively throughout many decades?

What we decide makes a genius or not matters, because then this is the yardstick we use for other members of our society. Knowing what makes someone spectacular (and thereby making them worthy of a “genius” title) can spread out into the fields of education, business, politics, and family life. Today, when we think of “attractive,” models on magazine covers come to mind: tall, skinny, thin lips. Fifty years ago, “attractive” was said of full figured, curvaceous, shorter women. The word made us all understand who was what, even though we didn’t know why.

What do we mean by “patriot” (supportive of the country/critical and looking for improvements)?

What is “safe” (doing what we know/learning the unknown)?

What does “liberal,” “conservative,” “religious” mean today?

The weight our words carry is then spread out throughout society. What is said is not static, but flows through our interaction with the rest of the world, and our understanding of what the world is.

The debate will go on as to who decides what a word truly means, the impact, and how we measure both, but one thing is not debatable: words matter.

They are tools, and they will either help us build, destroy, or modify our house. Using words as weapons will not fix anything. It will only destroy the house, and let the rubble take up the space indefinitely.

You might want to check these out, too:

• No Related Post

photocredit: sshvelasco

In the end, it’s all about drama. The highs and lows of any human experience keep us hooked for more. Soccer is no different. The beautiful game is a waterfall of dopamine (the pleasure hormone), serotonin (the mood-modulating hormone), and cortisol (the stress hormone). It is, all by itself, an emotionally-taxing experience.

Soccer/futbol/balonpie is simple and complex all by itself. There are only 17 rules in futbol (compared to over 100 in basketball; 45 in major league baseball). The severity of the foul is based on a referee’s subjective opinion. Red, yellow, neither, it all depends on the man not measures. Knowing what an “offsides” looks like is more of an art than a science. Thousands of moving parts, in each player’s biomechanics, each team’s chess-like strategy, and each ball’s chanfle, seamlessly merge and make the game a fit for idealists and neurotics alike. Where else is a tie considered a victory, or a loss considered a national tragedy?

The United States does not have the rich soccer history many other countries possess. Outside of the World Cup, soccer only registers in the minds of die-hard American fans year-around. Can anyone honestly name the cities the Sounders, Wizards, and Revolution respectively call home? It’s encouraging to see such a throng of supporters currently in South Africa, donning George Washington outfits and draped in the flag while they toot their vuvuzelas. Maybe if the US squad makes a majestic run at the Cup the tide will roll in soccer’s favor at home. But for many, that is unsavory thought.

Many American progressives are intently watching the games unfold, but for a very peculiar reason: they fear a victorious US. Some go as far as feeling the US doesn’t deserve to win. We are not a soccer nation, they say. Rooting for the US during the World Cup is like rooting for the US during the Olympics–it’s just knee-jerk patriotism. If we win, we will only feed our superiority complex.

That’s the crux of many progressives’ uneasiness: America already has so much going for it, why not let Algeria or Slovenia or Ghana get some good news to share at home. They feel American exceptionalism is already so ingrained in our psyche that a victorious run in the world’s most watched tournament only fuels the fire. It will only give us another reason to show our muscle, flex it, and do it with a smug grin.

Fanatics celebrating the US squad’s amazing comeback against Slovenia, or Donovan’s goal from the heavens against Algeria should temper their joy–Slovenia is still only a young, growing country; Algeria a fragile African democracy. Celebration would be unseemly.

Why is it so hard to just root for the Americans? Progressives in America may have the right intention, but their fear of being patriotic runs completely against the nature of the game. All countries feel unquenchable pride in their squads. Each squad knows they not only represent their own talents, but their country’s honor. That is why teams like France, who seem to play for themselves rather than their country, receive the most ridicule from their own compatriots. The World Cup makes it OK to expect the world from your squad. It’s alright to cry in joy or anguish when the impossible happens. Loving the best soccer players your country can offer is the least you can do for athletes who are playing at the highest imaginable level.

Politicizing the beautiful game brings unnecessary baggage to the arena. The game is not meant to foster international conflict or peace, or be a political instrument for pride and supremacy. What the game actually represents in healthy and fervent competition and sportsmanship. It tells us that despite every other problem facing the world at the moment, we can still kick the ball around and have fun with each other.

Let’s keep it at that, and be proud of our boys. They have the future of a sport on their backs.

You might want to check these out, too:

• No Related Post

photocredit: WorldIslandInfo.com

Politics lends itself to caricature. The drama, the characters, the celebrity, all make the political arena primed for hyperbolic figures and clashes. Very few persons in our nation’s history fit this bill like Theodore Roosevelt.

Theodore (who abhorred being called “Teddy”) was a man so voluminous and extravagant that he was both complex and easily identifiable. He was a man who fought ferociously for the conservation of parks, forests, and species, but who also was an avid hunter and taxidermist. He had what many have labeled “war lust,” never flinching at the possibility of armed conflict, always in favor of flexing American muscle. Yet, he became one of history’s greatest diplomats, earning a Nobel Peace Prize for his role in negotiating a peaceful resolution to the Russo-Japanese War, the only sitting president to earn said prize until President Obama’s recent awarding. Roosevelt was equally comfortable leading cowboys and rough riders into battle in Cuba, as he was discussing corruption and reform with New York City’s political bosses.

Despite these and various other dualities that could only work for a man like Roosevelt, his image as a politico with shiny chomps and a puffing walk is standard. A man of largesse and lore, in more than one sense. When he was president, little boys would do push ups to emulate his large, burly build; he was known to shake an average of 50 hands per minute. Since his early days in the NY State Assembly, his frenetic energy was legendary. Even then his iconic image was clear: a natural politician that couldn’t wait to press the flesh.

America’s elected officials today are suffering a depth deficit. There is an overwhelming sense of glitz and superficiality in campaigns and posturing. In today’s politics, millions of dollars dumped into television ads, or headline-garnering vitriol spouted into microphones, are enough to make a public figure. In California and in Nevada, they are enough to make a viable candidate. The complexity that Roosevelt had behind his caricature is lost in today’s celeb-pols. Like Paris Hilton or the White House-crashing couple, style and self-promotion trump substance.

This is leading to an increasingly sour aftertaste in American voters. Movements like the Tea Party are a vehicle (albeit a meandering and often destructive one) of this sentiment. Washington culture is so ingrained that even an incoming president, with unprecedented goodwill, popularity, and expectations, met it like a brick wall. If Roosevelt were alive today, even his unlimited buoyancy would leave no more than a dent.

Relying on dollars and spin over honest debate and feasible proposals is widening the trust gap that exploded with Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Voters are suffering time and again from the crash that comes after a sugar rush. They are left with disappointment, and to many, a sense of betrayal.

Roosevelt might have been a political animal only suited for his time (although one has to wonder how a man of his feverish curiosity would’ve used the multi-armed, morphing social media tools available today). But his timeless philosophy on life extended into his politics: be honest with yourself first. His image was his own. He was true to his core, even when he was ridiculed for his antics. Whenever he won or lost an election–and he had his share of both–he never felt like he sold something other than himself. This may be why he ended up becoming one of the most popular and venerated figures in our history, even though there is a part of him to infuriate any side of the political spectrum.

In 1895, as the Police Board President of New York City, trying to dismantle corruption within the force, two reporters asked him whether his next move was the greatest national office in the land. His response encapsulated Roosevelt’s character quite well:

“Never, never you must never [...] remind a man at work on a political job that he may be President. It almost always kills him politically. He loses his nerve; he can’t do his work; he gives up the very traits that are making him a possibility. I, for instance, I am going to do great things here, hard things that require courage, ability, work that I am capable of…But if I get to thinking of what it might lead to–”

He stopped mid-sentence, possibly because the idea of doing what was “sellable” to a higher office was a disgusting thought. Roosevelt was never a perfect man, and he never presented himself that way. Politicians today fear being disliked, or worse, overlooked. If they only followed a page from TR’s playbook, to be bold, honest, and fearless, they would improve not only their standing, but our politics.

You might want to check these out, too:

• No Related Post

photocredit: Jorge Franganillo

The late Robert McNamara was a man whose numerical and analytical genius was almost unquestioned. He became the youngest assistant professor at the time of the Harvard Business School. He rose through the military ranks, and earned praise for his efficiency and effectiveness analysis of bombers used during WWII. After climbing the corporate ladder at Ford Motor Company, he was accredited  with implementing organizational and planning systems that helped bring the company back to life and back to black.

President John F. Kennedy recognized his mastery of numbers and systems, and made his Secretary of Defense. McNamara brought to the administration the same mindset he had used for decades: numbers tell you everything.

Unfortunately for McNamara, his new position required that he deal with people’s lives in a much more immediate fashion. It wasn’t about bombing tactics or assembly line statistics anymore, but lives and limbs. He would go on to analyze the Vietnam war by body count and square miles conquered. These cold calculations would torment him until the day of his death.

The recent passage of SB1070 in Arizona has made a similar move. It converts people into statistics: how many are there in the state? how much are they costing the government? what does a “typical” illegal look like based on statistical history? The law symbolizes the materialization, and, as history might judge it, the catalyst of a brash, misguided, and intolerant type of right-wing activism.

It also symbolizes another example of numerical humanity.

The law is inherently racial. It bases the idea of “suspicion” on appearance, in particular, racial background and type. The law is also a xenophobic fantasy that lacks resources, strategy, vision, and, in the end, will result in a weaker state, politically and economically.

Arizona itself is not to blame for this law. Neither are its people. Republican representatives and the Republican governor are to blame. They have begun an irresponsible crusade to tackle an issue as a numbers-based problem. It is black and white for them; grey is too timid and unquantifiable a shade.

In the aftermath of Gov. Brewer signing the bill into law, another news story broke that few papers have noticed so far. The Arizona Department of Education recently told school districts to remove “heavily-accented” or grammatically-deficient teachers from their schools. In essence, anyone who’s second language is English should be removed from the payroll. This after the state of Arizona spent nearly a decade in the 1990’s recruiting Spanish-speaking teachers, some directly from Latin America.

The effectiveness of this mandate is dubious.Whether being accent-free will help kids learn English better is not backed by research. But like the anti-immigration law, it leaves so much room for interpretation that it becomes dangerous. Their foundation are assumptions based on numbers.

Who fits the profile of possibly “looking illegal” or being “heavily-accented”? Look at the stats.

The anti-immigration wave is not exclusive to Arizona; other states have followed suit. A Republican representative from California recently advocated deporting US-born children of illegal immigrants. Another Republican vying for his party’s nomination in a congressional race in Iowa thinks all illegal immigrants should be microchipped. His explanation:

I can microchip my dog so I can find it. Why can’t I microchip an illegal?

A Republican representative in Oklahoma plans to introduce a bill similar to Arizona’s this year.

The debate has now deteriorated into an outright campaign to remove any shred of compassion and reason from the issue of immigration reform. People are not people anymore, but problems or abstract ideas. If an illegal immigrant can have his humanity removed by a state mandate, what does this say about us, about them, and about our politics?

Immigration is not an abstract topic. Once humanity is overlooked or quantified, it becomes open to experimentation and inhumane propositions. Immigration begins and ends with human beings, families, and their livelihoods.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (Alpine, CA), the Republican who proposed children of illegal immigrants be deported, even if they were born in the United States, framed his initial case as a national security issue. And he is right. Being serious about our nation’s security must include securing the ports and entrances we share with the world. He then goes on to possibly summarize the crux of this anti-immigration wave: what makes someone American?

To Rep. Hunter, it’s quite simple:

It takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen. It’s what’s in our souls.

Who can argue with that line of reasoning?

You might want to check these out, too:

• Immigration Reform: Battle Royale 2010
• Rethinking Illegal Immigration
• Did McNamara get Fawcetted?
• poliPicks

Social conservatives are known for their tireless efforts to prevent same-sex marriage.  Recently, Mike Huckabee told reporters that gay marriage was opening the doors to “legalizing drugs, polygamy and incest”.

Huckabee also noted that legalizing gay marriage would be difficult because “They have to prove that two men can have an equally definable relationship called marriage, and somehow that that can mean the same thing.”

Those who preach religious doctrine and the sanctity of marriage are in need of a serious history lesson.  Contrary to popular belief, marriage is not a stagnant religious tradition. Marriage has been constantly changing and evolving – and that is the only way in which it survives.

Today’s society implements a social freedom that was rare in previous eras. Up until the 19th century, love was not a reason to get married.  People married for power, money and status. Arranged marriages were the norm, as well as adultery. This idea of romantic love is a fairly new factor in choosing who to marry.

The first recorded marriages in ancient Mesopotamia began as a way for males to ensure the paternity of their children.  Regarding marriage in early Western Civilization,  Sociologist Edvard Westermarck proposed that  ”the institution of marriage has probably developed out of a primeval habit”.  Women lacked rights and most marriages were seen as business transactions between family.

A little known fact: the only reason the church got involved with marriage was due to the barbaric treatment of women.  During the medieval era, in the newly Christianized countries of Northern Europe, women were treated like domestic slaves.  The church set out to improve the treatment of women by using religious doctrine.  It was only then that theologians included marriage as a sacrament.

Once the church became involved it began to impose regulations on marriage, required special  ceremonies and banned divorce. It wasn’t until the 13th century that priests actually officiated at weddings.

During the Protestant Reformation, marriage would undergo more changes. The English Puritans passed an Act of Parliament declaring marriage a secular act.  Though this act was overturned during the Restoration, these same Puritans brought this concept with them to America.

Since then, marriage law has repeatedly evolved in the U.S. In 1769, married law stated, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything”.  Men were given complete control over property owned jointly with their wives until 1981.

The marriage reform that most parallels the current same-sex marriage debate was the U.S. Supreme Court case, Loving v. Virginia, which overturned all state bans on interracial marriage, declaring that the “freedom to marry” belongs to all Americans.  It’s important to note that polls showed that 70% of Americans opposed interracial marriage at the time of this ruling.  According to a poll taken in 2009, 42% of Americans support same-sex marriage and 25% support civil unions, with only 28% supporting no legal recognition at all.  The country is less split on gay marriage than it was on interracial marriage at the time legislation was passed in favor of it.

In 1996, former Missouri congressman James Talent said “It is an act of hubris to believe that marriage can be infinitely malleable, that it can be pushed and pulled around like silly putty without destroying its essential stability and what it means to our society”.

So, according to the logic of Talent, Huckabee and other conservatives who argue that marriage should not adjust to new social standards, women should never have been awarded rights, marital rape should have remained unrecognized and interracial marriage should still be illegal.

Despite the religious label conservatives have placed on the act of marriage, this legally binding contract is in place as a method of organizing social responsibilities through law. The moral, spiritual and religious characteristics of marriage are up to each individual, but the legality of marriage is reliant upon secular paperwork and the courts.

The 2010 census counted same-sex couples as married because it is a far more accurate way to determine the demographics of the nation. Why? Because people of the same-sex are already living just as heterosexual couples do.  In order to maintain social order, we have to recognize these couples as living in a state of matrimony.

The backlash from conservatives is hindering the social stability and economic prosperity that will come from legalizing same-sex marriage.  The institution of marriage must be recognized not as a religious sacrament, but a social structure that is generally beneficial to all those involved.

The fear that gay marriage will open the doors to things like incest and polygamy is laughable – pandora’s box was not opened when interracial marriage was made legal.   Judging from history, the evolution of marriage is slow but inevitable.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Old Posts, Renewed
• Old Posts, Renewed
• Old Posts, Renewed
• Biggest Tuesday since the last Biggest Tuesday

photocredit: rayphua

Even the most jaded political observer can take one thing from Obama’s term thus far: he knows harmony. This shouldn’t be a shock, since his campaign platform was as much about “hope” and idealism as it was about bipartisanship and finding mutual interests. But, then again, idealists are often closet ideologues, and bipartisanship can be cast off as an empty promise or annoying kumbaya. The one reason Obama has been able to fly over either criticism is his success at achieving tangible results.

There is a discipline in Democrats today that has been missing for years, even decades. Their ambitious agenda, while inciting sparks with those hoping for a timid government, is achieving results. Campaign promises and wishful thinking are materializing at an unprecedented pace. Healthcare reform, a Keynesian economy, a nuclear-free world, and a nuclear-less (or is it de-nuclearized) Iran are either reality or look like they will soon be.

The Democrats tend to rock their own ship from clashes that are bound to occur under a big tent. But this time, they are not allowing themselves to fall off of it. Much of the credit for that discipline goes to Pelosi, but the true commander is President Obama.

In yesterday’s nuclear summit, he produced another victory: a 47-nation pact, where each will take steps to rid the world of loose nuclear materials. This, like the recent US-Russia nuclear arms reduction treaty, is not pie in the sky. They are public agreements that will play into the politics at home for each of those nations. Heads of state do not sign such pacts freely; the political impact of a signature is carefully calculated before the ink reaches paper. If that were the case, Iran and North Korea would have long ago signed such a treaty and gone back to working under the radar. Obama earned that victory the same way he has managed to herd the pack of cats known as the Democratic party. He is best when surrounded by chaos. And, put simply, that is why he is most comfortable with his party and with foreign policy.

The anarchic nature of foreign policy is so because all states fend for themselves. In the days when mercantilism was favored and countries were expected to sabotage each other’s commercial routes, or destroy their neighbor’s fleet to have an advantage in regional commerce, the anarchy was unmanageable. It was true chaos. Today, however, as so many countries have many trading partners, both for goods and finances, there is a gentleman’s agreement to be civil. Henry Kissinger knew that one way to avoid nuclear war with the USSR was to become their economic partner. Co-dependency would keep the world afloat.

There is equilibrium as long as no one makes up their own rules. That is why rogue nations have the spotlight right now. Their volatility is dangerous not only for the region, but for the entire international system.

Obama is much more effective in this chaos than many of his predecessors, because of his natural cool and appreciation for harmony. As was evident at the nuclear summit yesterday, and at the healthcare summit in February, the president knows how to mediate. He can take the good and bad of various opinions and find enough common ground to make all parties feel they are getting some of the pie, thereby fostering an honest and productive dialogue. In foreign policy, this is the core of diplomacy.

President Obama has shown time and again that he is no idealist. If anything, he is a pragmatic reformer that has studied Niebuhr enough to know progress is slow and frustrating. The best an ambitious man can do is keep pressure on the issue and keep the columns from breaking. Unlike his predecessor, George W., Obama does not believe in going for the knockout. Even the push to pass healthcare was not a swoop from above; after nearly a year of debate and delirious politickin’, the bill was modest and tactical. While W. tore down the columns, Obama is applying consistent pressure on each, moving them where he wants. Obama prevented the hull of his ship from breaking through careful calculation, and that is something the typically energetic (i.e. neurotic) Democratic party hasn’t seen since LBJ.

The recent string of foreign policy victories will help him with the two behemoths in front of him: Iran and Israel. Many before him have failed in finding a peaceful medium when it comes to these two. He must use his calm if he wants to achieve harmony in such places that have long ago discarded civility toward neighbors.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Liz Cheney Sharpens Her Candidate Teeth
• poliPicks
• Obama’s Cairo Speech (VIDEO) and Reactions
• Obama’s Trip to the Middle East: Showing Off America’s New Face

While the tea party rally in Milwaukee was much milder than those making headlines, it did offer an interesting perspective of this social movement that is, according to Chairman Mark Williams, “sweeping” the nation.

Prior to 2010, the tea party protests had a narrow focus.  In 2009 they protested the TARP Bailout Bill and mainly focused on taxation like that of the original Boston Tea Party.  With the Obama Administration making broad changes, especially to health care, the rallies have become a place to vent about anything and everything that the Democrats are doing.

The main argument of the tea party movement is that our government is not strictly adhering to the Constitution (specifically by forcing the purchase of health insurance and ignoring legislative process to pass HCR in the “cover of darkness”).  Several people interviewed after the rally in Milwaukee reiterated the same message that the Constitution, as the founding fathers wrote it, should be enforced.

Ironically, while most people who support the tea party agree with this ideal, they act as though Obama has no right his presidency. It seems as though the constitution is only worth following if Republicans are in office.  How easily they forget that 53% of Americans voted for Obama using their constitutional rights to vote. The fact that his approval ratings have dipped does not cancel out that the majority of Americans chose him over McCain.  (Do they not remember Bush’s approval ratings?)

As a group, tea partiers are angry about the way the country is being run, however they don’t offer any fixes.  The speakers rile up the crowds with complaints about health care reform, taxes, abortion and government spending, but even Republicans in office know that if they don’t agree with the current fixes they must come up with alternative solutions.

This is why the tea party remains a fringe movement – the majority of these followers are not politically savvy, they are just tired of the economy and unhappy with the direction the government is taking.  These protests give them a place to express their anxieties, while feeling as though they are taking proactive steps toward putting candidates with more conservative values back into office.

That being said, it is great to see people actively take a role in politics.  The people at these protests honestly believe that they can change the government by using their voting power. The level of enthusiasm of the crowd rivals that of Obama’s campaign days.

So how seriously should we take the Tea Party?  Is this nothing more than a social-protest movement or will these rowdy rallys have a substantial effect on November elections?   At first glance, the movement seems far too extreme to gain and maintain a significant following.  Throwing around words like “socialism” and using highly-divisive speakers like Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin will prevent them from gaining support from Independents.  The real effectiveness of the tea party will be reflected in its influence on the Republican Party, whether positive or negative.

The tea party will play a substantial role in determining the direction of the GOP.  Though many Republicans have distanced themselves from the movement Sarah Palin has advocated “absorbing” the tea party, a move that many are leery about.

The tea party demands ultra-conservative candidates, a far cry from the fairly moderate John McCain.  A strong push to the right could make or break elections for Republicans in November, depending on the direction the country takes in the next few months.  Recently, Republican candidates have been edging towards the right out of fear that they may not be seen as “conservative enough.”

On the other hand, if the Republicans choose to keep the tea party separate, it could end up splitting the conservative vote.  Even chairman Mark Williams acknowledged that creating a new conservative party would be “political suicide.”

Though far from being considered a third political party, the tea party doesn’t seem to be backing down anytime soon.  The creation of the National Tea Party Federation was announced on Thursday, a sign that the movement is becoming more and more organized.  Recent Rasmussen polls have also suggested that tea party is going mainstream, with more Americans indentifying with the movement’s values than Obama’s views.

November elections may determine the future of the tea party.  If Republicans retake the majority, the movement may fade quickly.  If not, expect them to stick around until 2012, possibly with their own candidate.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Old Posts, Renewed
• Sexy Pretty Political Things
• poliPicks
• Palin Might Attend WH Correspondents Dinner. Or Not.

photocredit: babble.com

Halfway down the first fairway, a spectator called out, “Welcome back, Tiger.” And Woods did something he rarely did in the last few years — he turned, made eye contact, smiled and waved. -NYT

Tiger Woods didn’t have to make a comeback so soon. No one would question his prowess at the game he has dominated for over a decade if he waited another few months, another year. His image, marriage, and probably his self-confidence, are all severely damaged. Many of the people criticizing his move to return to the game say he should spend this time working on the latter three. He should work on his life, not his work. But Tiger knows the undisputed fact that he is an American celebrity. He needs to play by the rules that come with the role.

Tiger’s fall, like most other celebrities’, was self-inflicted. The gamut of poisons many in the spotlight succumb to ranges from sex, to gambling, to drinking, to violence, to all of the above and then some. In a moment of weakness or passion they indulge in the power their fame affords them and become pure animal instinct. They do what they want. What’s worse is that this act of indulgence is broadcasted to the entire world in HD. Their private follies are open to public ridicule, making even an honest act of contrition a tightrope walk: cry too much and you are just being phony or having a breakdown; don’t cry and you are a soulless robot. Even when repenting their sins, celebrities have to choreograph everything down to the shade of their makeup.

Our fascination with celebrities, either from Hollywood or Washington, is truly American. We sometimes follow celebrities more than our very own family members, and in doing so become so familiar with them that we want to know as many details as possible about their famed lives. We care when they break-up,  breakdown, and when they take a break. The juiciest celebrities news, however, is when they fall. We get to witness a giant in our eyes become a human once more. We also get a chance to see them rise again.

And that is the core characteristic of our fascination with celebrity, shared with hundreds of inspiring movies, sports Cinderella stories, and tales of “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps”: the climb out of the abyss. We judge ourselves and our icons by how much is endured, and how much is conquered after we hit our nadir. While the destruction itself is fascinating to watch (like a car crash or a firework display), the resurrection of a career or respect is what makes it an American story.

During his first day of practice at The Masters, Tiger looked stiff and meek. He was no longer a demigod amongst mortals; he was now feeling like a rookie, trying hard to earn the affection of fans and critics. He was vulnerable in a way few of us could imagine: he was vulnerable in public, by people who know a lot about him, and he nothing about them. His private sins ruined his public image, which in turn cut further into his private self.

He is in the rebuilding stages, and what he does now is more important to his future than what he did for many years in hotel rooms and golf courses. Tiger has to re-earn his place among golf’s, and America’s, greats. His story will be measured by his success at being great, the second time around.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Miss Universe has ‘fun’ at Guantanamo

photocredit: globevisions

Research has shown that there is a strong correlation between the health of the economy and “trust” in government. Unemployment, GDP growth, foreclosures rates and economic boons may lead people to believe in their government more than lack of corruption scandals or unsavory politicians. This makes perfect sense. As James Carville used to remind Governor Clinton in ‘92, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

But with today’s multi-tasking administration, it’s not just the economy, stupid. There’s more than one 500-lbs. gorilla: healthcare, Afghanistan, Iraq, immigration, nuclear weapons, Iran, and global warming, just to rattle off the ones populating the front pages. Reform is used often enough by President Obama to dizzy some Americans unsure of change. The massive undertaking underway is enough to stoke claims of “radicalism,” “socialism,” and any other -ism that oversimplifies reality.

Obama’s numbers began to sag after his first big push, the stimulus package. This was in part due to his team not controlling the narrative, and being too cautious in selling the measure, avoiding accusations of overzealousness. The fight for healthcare, the wars, and overhauling the economy seemed to sap his already dwindling political capital. Many pundits, from Left to Right, considered his presidency dead soon after his first anniversary. What these pundits failed to understand, or maybe decided to ignore, was that approval numbers and overall trust in government were bound to fall. The sausage was being made.

In politics, when the sausage is being made, it is not a pleasant sight to see. Deals are cut, compromises are accepted, denied, and renegotiated, and unlikely alliances are built, leaving some Americans with an awful aftertaste of “opportunism.” But once the politics are pushed aside, and tangible benefits and reforms are enacted, people can see government for what it is: gradual progress based on consensus-building. That is not the sexiest thing in the world, but neither is a sausage factory.

The last couple of weeks before healthcare was passed (and then passed again, thanks to the Senate Republicans doing some parliamentary shenanigans that amounted to fouling the other team, 15 points down and with 5 seconds left in the 4th quarter), you could sense a bit swagger emanating from the White House. Even if healthcare reform would not be all it could be (no public option, no strengthening of reproductive rights), it was reform, and it was substantial. It was considered on life-support by almost everyone at least once in the past year, and nearly moribund after Scott Brown was elected. Once Obama used 22 pens to sign the most sweeping domestic legislation in the last 30 years, the sausage began to cook.

His poll numbers have jumped considerably, almost over night. The legislation is already favored by the majority of Americans, when just a month ago most considered it unsavory. Talks of a GOP takeover in November are falling to a whisper. One victory has led a couple more (student loans, nuclear arms pact), and may lead to yet a few more (global warming and immigration). The American people woke up the day after healthcare reform was passed and saw America as they knew it was still there, intact and on solid ground. The sausage was made, and they, along with Obama and Pelosi, were able to stomach it. Now, they are starting to smell the treats.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Public Option Continues to Confuse
• Obamacare and its discontents
• poliPicks
• The Anti-Samson

photocredit: WashPo

One of the most celebrated “Average Joe takes on the Government” movies of all time is Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, with Jimmy Stewart. Dozens of movies have since copied the idea of one man or woman fighting for justice and all that is good by giving those DC folks an earful. It is, like most movies that take the unlikely and stretch it into the reasonably possible, mostly a fairy tale; it is chicken soup for the frustrated citizenry. Mr. Smith stopped Congress from voting into law an unfair bill by filibustering for 23 straight hours, by himself. One man, one mission, one government being taught a lesson in what is just. The moral was that everyone gets a say, and everyone has power.

This month, two Republican senators, Sen. Jim Bunning of Kentucky, and Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, had their own warped Mr. Smith moment. Sen. Bunning stopped the vote on an extension of unemployment benefits for 200,000 Americans, because, according to him, the government just couldn’t “afford” to pay for it. Sen. Shelby held the nomination process of 70 qualified candidates, most for important Defense roles, because he wanted to secure two pet projects for his home state. They both claimed to be representing the will of the people…but which people? And does this type of representation even qualify as “democratic”?

In a country of over 300,000,000, should the survival of a personal ideology, or the prosperity of a few sweetheart companies, be enough to suspend government? Sen. Bunning’s halt led to thousands of people not getting their unemployment check in the mail, when long-term unemployment is at a historic high. Sen. Shelby’s “blanket hold” (ceasing all Senate activity through procedural maneuvering) left critical Defense and National Security posts empty. Is this still part of a democracy?

On the other end, there are tools and protocols in our system that are misused. The filibuster is no longer used to debate or give pause to transformative legislation. It is now used to fight petty political battles, or threaten gridlock for the sake of a political win. The reconciliation process, which is inherently democratic, is called “partisan” and “forceful” for the same reason.

The rules and the tone of the discussion are being rewritten constantly, by both the majority and minority party. There is no consensus on what classifies as “consensus.” A filibuster can be patriotic to some, obstructionist to others; majorities are allowed to set the pace of the agenda, unless you are in the minority and want your vote to count as much as when you were in power. A see-saw like this can make any American feel thrown out of the process.

With the midterm elections 9 months away, it’s unlikely that the see-saw will slow down. The aftermath of those elections, however, will be a rude awakening for many. Bunning and Shelby are up for re-election this year, so their antics may be more of a show than an pervading attitude. GOP Senator Mitch McConnell’s incessant call for filibustering anything touched by Democratic hands may be more of a distraction maneuver than a party strategy. It may all be glitz and fireworks.

But if Americans want to send a message to political divas, letting them know that power should always be more of a burden than a benefit, they must cast a vote against those flaunting it recklessly. If Americans wants someone like Mr. Smith to have a chance to exist in our politics, they must vote for people who want to fight the good fight, not just fight for the sake of fighting.

You might want to check these out, too:

• 500 Words on: Iran and Mexico, Democracy’s Growing Pains

A certain someone asked me a few months ago whether I thought Obama was really a liberal president.  Of course I answered yes.  He then asked what Obama had done so far in office to make me think that.  After my usual sch-peel of, “well, what has he done period?” I listed a few minor policy changes that I view as far left.

Admittedly, after that conversation I thought it over again and decided that I may have been wrong. (I didn’t tell him that, but I guess the cat is out of the bag now) Despite what I may have been quick to think, at that point I felt that Obama had been a surprisingly centrist president.

But now, a few months later, I retract the ridiculous notion that Obama was actually going to govern from the center.  I’d like to take that thought, set it on fire and throw it out the window.

As always it comes down to health care reform.   We’ve all heard the sob story by now; the Democrats can’t get it passed and the Republicans are being nuisances.   Cue the image of Obama sitting in the Oval Office shaking his head at his bickering kids.  Poor Barack. No one wants to play nice.

When Bill Clinton proposed HillaryCare he faced similar opposition.  Republicans didn’t like it, voters didn’t get it and even some Democrats wouldn’t support it.  Sound familiar?  So the bill died and Clinton worked with both Democrats and Republicans to come up with less radical alternatives that made both parties moderately happy.  In other words, he started tweaking his policies and governing from the center rather than the left.

Obama, it seems, has yet to read that memo.  Unlike Clinton he’s breaking out the defibrillator and shocking his flawed bill back to life.  Again. Despite his plummeting approval ratings, lost elections and experts saying that the reform would be detrimental to the economy, he marches on.

The White House released a spruced up health care plan which fails to fix the real issue.  Americans have one main concern with health care – the rising costs.  Obama’s plan, chock full of regulations and mandates just doesn’t solve that problem.

His televised summit with the Republicans seems like a great way to convince the public he’s trying to compromise with both sides. The reality is he’s clearly intent on passing this bill quickly. There has been talk about using reconciliation, which would allow the Democrats to pass parts of the bill with only 51 votes.

Columnist David Corn commented that it is time to “crash the bill” over the finish line.  Do American’s really want a major overhaul of their health care system that has to be drop-kicked over legitimate concerns in order to be passed?

Obama needs to scrap his plan and start from scratch.  He should host a summit with Republicans but actually listen to what they have to say instead of showing up with a plan already set in motion.  Enough with the fake bipartisanship.  If he truly wants to lead and be elected for a second term, he must drop this radical reform and work with both parties to develop a more centrist approach to health care.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Biggest Tuesday since the last Biggest Tuesday
• The Blame Game
• The liberal agenda needs unity
• The Specter Aftermath

photocredit: Infrogmation

When Reverend Wright saturated the airwaves and Youtubeways in early 2008, many thought the Obama campaign was about to derail just as it gained its momentum. It ended up being one of the defining moments of his campaign for the presidency. The quiet, potentially unwieldy, elephant in the room was about to take center stage: Obama was black, and that could have radical implications.

The outcome was something few expected. Candidate Obama not only addressed the inflammatory rhetoric coming from the Rev. that had the potential of ending his until-then meteoric rise, but he raised the discussion beyond the political. He took control of the narrative of his campaign.

The administration has done a fairly good job so far at modulating its own voice. This White House has been one of the most well-behaved in recent memory; there is hardly any damning commentary or rebellious side chatter coming from any of the insiders. But that has hardly resulted in regaining the message control they had during the campaign. Obama’s White House has been prone to put blinders on and convincingly discuss a handful of issues, letting everyone else decide what to make of the rest. In doing so it has lost what made Obama such an appealing intellectual: a clear message.

The NYTimes pointed out today that the administration seems to finally be touting the virtues of the stimulus bill. This comes a year after almost every Republican has torn into it, calling it everything from “socialist” to “a failure” to a waste of government money; a year after the Tea Party movement used it as rabble-rousing fodder; a year of Americans thinking their taxes actually increased under Obama’s term; a year after Obama’s team spent too little time “selling” the stimulus to the American people before selling them a war, a reform, and a Supreme Court justice.

Whether the benefits of the stimulus are enough to reject the criticism is not the point. (Although, numbers supplied by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office suggests its positive impact is substantial). President Obama has been skillful at constructing persuasive messaging for many (but not all) topics, including himself. He is still much more popular than his policies or his party. His brand is still the most sellable in Washington. But his laser focus has left other priorities out in the cold. While he was using his charm under his own terms (Leno, magazine covers, George Lopez Show ads), he let the closure of Guantanamo become “dangerous” to Americans. While he explained how close we were to healthcare reform, he let Congress chop it up into something ineffable.

By letting the storyline for the stimulus, the ambitious first legislation that set the tone for the rest of his presidency, be told by everyone else, he forfeited control over most of his messaging from that point on. As a candidate, Obama zeroed in on an issue (Reverend Wright and race; Hillary Clinton and his inexperience; Bush and the economy; hope; reform) and steer into friendlier waters. As president, Obama has followed the same strategy, but as he himself noted when McCain suspended his campaign in order to save the economy, a president’s view must be multi-focal. A president must not only be everywhere and do everything simultaneously, but he must also set the tone for every conversation.

If Obama wants to retell America’s story of perseverance and resilience to the American people, he must be willing to finish telling it all the way through. Letting political opponents, or the unconverted who straddle loyalties, write out the storyline of any move coming out the White House muddles the narrative at best, changes the plot altogether at worst. Obama’s story–raised by a single mother, working his way up the Ive League and the political ladder–made him exceptional. Losing the message war means his story will have an abrupt, unsatisfying ending.

You might want to check these out, too:

• The Anti-Samson
• Ain’t No Party Like a Tea Party
• Cooking the Sausage
• ObamaCare Part II: Push, Pull or Drag it to the Finish Line.

photocredit: mybulldog

There was a giddy frenzy going around Democratic circles last week. “Did you see Obama in that Q&A with the Republicans? He tore them apart!” A reason to cheer: the president had finally rid himself of the uber-nice bipartisan guise and put on that of a stern teacher tired of telling the class their paper is due tomorrow. That role probably came very naturally to him; the law professor really never left the building.

Cynicism could easily have set in after Obama’s breakthrough performance. Obama has dazzled his peers before. He has often also rolled up his sleeves and gotten back to the grind soon after the razzle dazzle. The latter is slightly less scintillating than the former. But this time, his administration has a new strategy: pet the grizzly.

Calling the Republicans in Congress a “Minority” is a disservice. Not necessarily to the party, but to the power of their obstruction. By being cantankerous and instinctively cranky (McCain, I am looking at you), the GOP has managed to have power when they have none; they have set the pace and outline of the agenda by just standing there, unwilling to budge. They are the grizzly, albeit a slightly lazy one with short, but potent bursts of rage.

Last week’s Q&A, the American version of the British Question Time, shook the grizzly awake.

After reminding the grizzly that it, too, has a role in government, Obama wants to show voters how willing he is to cooperate by being nice to this burdensome beast. He is, in a way, forcing them to make a move that doesn’t involve sitting back down. He invited Republican leadership to his Super Bowl party; he is seriously considering implementing some central GOP proposals into his healthcare reform package; he invited Republicans to a brainstorming meeting next week, as well as some trips to Camp David. Obama is being nice to the grizzly. So nice that any attack or disgruntlement on behalf of the GOP will make it the party to blame.

Whether this strategy will work or not is unknown. Republicans could easily brush this off as “faux bipartisanship,” as they have in the past; Obama could also throw his hands up in the air and go into street fighter mode (Chicago politics were his training ground). But this time, the president is going for a lasting effect. Even if the Republicans don’t play ball, he has already sowed the seed of mutual-responsibility in the mind of voters. Republicans, even in their minority status, are also in charge of governing. If Obama can make the argument that a minority is only as strong as it lets itself be, voters will start to share the blame, as they should. Republicans have coasted for too long on just saying “no.” Now they must at least say, “no, but…” Quite a stretch, even for the largest of mammals.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Is Obama a One Hit Wonder?
• Question Time Comes to America
• Healthcare Tumbles, Democrats Fumble
• Don’t expect 2010 to be 1994. Part 2: Healthcare

In his State of the Union speech, Obama tried to recapture the mood of his campaign.  He reminded voters that he is on their side, not Washington’s side, and that he sympathizes with their concerns.  Only this time around, it was a hard sell.  A year of slow-moving decisions and failed health care reform has turned supporters into skeptics.  People just aren’t seeing the change that was the focus of his campaign.  The euphoria that the Democrats experienced after a successful, driven campaign has faded.

That being said, Obama is in danger of losing the support of a key demographic that could make or break an election: young voters.  Voters ages 18-29 turned out in record numbers for the 2008 election.  If the Democrats fail to come up with and pass a solid health care reform bill that people can actually support, these voters (who are the most likely to be affected by the bill) may pass on 2012 elections.

The state of the economy will without a doubt still be a major factor in the 2012. Even if the job market is improved, the country will still be far from recovered.  People lack patience; they want the economy fixed now.  If they don’t feel that there has been enough “change” they may wish to hedge their bets with the next Republican candidate that comes around (providing that it’s not someone with the name Palin.)  America is a nation that likes to place blame. Fingers were pointed at the Bush Administration and in 2012 they could very well be pointed at Obama.

Obama’s major downfall is his unwillingness to veer away from his extreme statist policies, even when they clearly aren’t working.   He’s attempting to push through a healthcare reform bill that just isn’t popular.  In 1996, Clinton stopped pushing HillaryCare and focused on bipartisan solutions.  Clinton realized that in order to accomplish anything, he needed to lean more towards the center and away from big government.

Scott Brown’s election win in Massachusetts is a prime example of America’s centrists view. Republicans have acknowledged that Brown appeals to independents and moderate democrats because he does not represent traditional republicanism.  Brown’s victory should be a wakeup call to Obama that at this point, the country is more moderate than left-leaning.

According to Polifact.com, Obama has broken 15 promises so far.  For a president who is dealing with a “deficit of trust” these broken promises are significant.  His new budget projection shows an increase from last year, a contradiction to his many statements that he would reduce spending.  Domestic discretionary spending was increased by 84 percent, a fact that Republicans are making noise about.  They are calling out his credibility and ability to lead, serious allegations when he’s already on a slippery slope.

If Obama doesn’t quickly re-evaluate his strategy and accept blame for failed policies, he could be opening the door for a Republican in 2012.  Because voters so passionately believed in him, they will easily be disappointed if he doesn’t do what is expected of him.  His campaign of change won’t be enough to carry him to another term if he can’t produce results.

You might want to check these out, too:

• Question Time Comes to America
• Public Option Continues to Confuse
• Obamacare and its discontents
• Liz Cheney Sharpens Her Candidate Teeth