OPINION - Capehart and Abernathy 11/5/2021

"Capehart and Abernathy on Virginia elections, Build Back Better plan, Colin Powell" PBS NewsHour 11/5/2021

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Washington Post columnists Jonathan Capehart and Gary Abernathy join Judy Woodruff to discuss Tuesday’s surprising election results, the fate of the infrastructure and Build Back Better bill, and reflect on the life and legacy of Colin Powell.

Judy Woodruff (NewsHour):  Democrats and Republicans across the country are examining Tuesday night's surprising election results, with an eye toward crafting their strategies for next year's crucial midterm election races.

Meanwhile, dignitaries in Washington today gathered to remember the life and legacy of former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Here to add perspective on all this and more are Capehart and Abernathy.  That's Jonathan Capehart, columnist for The Washington Post, and Gary Abernathy, an Ohio-based writer and contributing columnist for The Washington Post.  David Brooks is away.

It's very good to see both of you.

And, Gary, you're here from Ohio, and we're glad to see you.

Gary Abernathy, Washington Post:  Thank you for having me.

Judy Woodruff:  So, what a week, as the three of us were just saying.

Jonathan Capehart, you have now had three whole days to think about what happened, what the voters said on Tuesday, and what do you think it was?

Jonathan Capehart, Washington Post:  So, I split it between Virginia and New Jersey.

With Virginia, governor-elect Glenn Youngkin showed that it's possible to embrace Trump voters with — but, at the same time, keep Donald Trump out of your — physically out of your state.  He showed, as I mentioned last week, the role of playing on racial fear to drive people out to the polls, particularly when it comes to so-called Critical Race Theory.

In New Jersey, the near political death experience of Governor Phil Murphy, Democrat, to my mind shows the larger, bigger national — the problem that the national Democratic Party has.  Governor Murphy is popular in New Jersey.  He was running on the President's agenda, basically, and the fact that he squeaked it out says that folks in New Jersey are tired, seemingly, of the dysfunction of Democrats arguing with each other over bills, not being able to show they can get anything done.

Judy Woodruff:  We saw more of that today.

Jonathan Capehart:  Yes, and still going on today.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Jonathan Capehart:  And so the party has to figure out how to reach those voters that Glenn Youngkin reached, be able to talk to them, but also show the country that they're competent, that they are worthy of being entrusted with governing.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary Abernathy, what messages do you think the voters were delivering?

Gary Abernathy:  Well, a lot of Democrats are saying that the message was:  We need to do more.  We haven't done this.  We were punished for not passing these bills we promised we were going to pass.

I think it's the opposite.  I think voters were saying:  We don't like what you're doing.

Now, there are two different things here, and the Democrats try to tie them together, the infrastructure bill and the Build Back Better bill, two different things.  The infrastructure bill has tremendous bipartisan support.  They should pass that.  They should pass that tonight and show they're doing something, not just politically, but the country needs this infrastructure bill.

But people thought — we have to remember, the 2020 election was a referendum on Donald Trump.  It was not about issues.  It was not about what Biden was promising to do.  It was, we either want Trump, more of him, or we're going to kick him out.  They voted to kick him out.  The majority did.

But they thought they were getting a safe alternative with Joe Biden.  And he turned out to be a guy who's been much more aggressively liberal with the Bernie Sanders wing than people were voting for.

One key thing from the exit polls on — the Edison exit polls that I think The Washington Post used and other networks…

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Gary Abernathy:  … said that Trump is still unpopular in Virginia.  Seven out of 10 voters thought that Youngkin's policies and ideas were much like Trump's.  Didn't hurt him a bit.  He won.

People are OK with Trump's policies.  They just didn't like Trump.

Judy Woodruff:  But what about what the Democrats are offering?

I hear you, the two of you, saying different things about whether Americans want what the Democrats are debating and still haven't been able to pass yet, Jonathan.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, I think that's the problem.  They still haven't been able to pass it.

If you tease out every little thing out of both the infrastructure bill, which we know has bipartisan support, but even what's in the Build Back Better Act, last I checked — there are so many things in it — but if you tease out the individual pieces, they have popular support.

It's just that, if you're going to go for it, and you have got the House and you have got the Senate and you have the White House, to the larger American public who doesn't follow the stuff the way we do, they sit back and think, why can't you get anything done if you have all three of these branches?

And that is why this is such a problem for Democrats and the President.

Judy Woodruff:  What I hear you saying, Gary, is, even if they pass this other piece of legislation, that may not help the Democrats.

Gary Abernathy:  I think it hurts them.

I think that it's — again, I'm going to say — and Jonathan and I are disagreeing on this, but the message Tuesday was:  We don't like the direction you're going.

The Democrats, really, if they stopped to evaluate what happened Tuesday, they would be better off sitting and letting Joe Manchin lead the discussion, while Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez kind of sit to the side a little bit and listen, because I think Manchin, to his credit, kind of has a pulse on where America is at now.

And, no, the Democrat Party doesn't have to become the Republican Party, but Joe Manchin is a pretty centrist Democrat who's trying to wave the red flag and ring the warning bells, and no one's listening to him yet.

Jonathan Capehart:  OK.

The Democratic Party, in the Build Back Better plan, for instance, would love for there to be paid family leave.  And I guess conservatives look at paid family leave as paying people to stay home, instead of looking at the domino effect of what it means in order for a family to not risk their job in order to stay home for whatever — for whatever reason, grieving the loss of a parent, a new child coming into the family.

Judy Woodruff:  Right.

Jonathan Capehart:  There are economic benefits that the American people want, the Earned Income Tax Credit for children, any number of things.

It's not — I don't think it's that the American people don't want these things and that these aren't a grab bag of things to just give away.  They have a benefit for the long-term health and security, economic well-being of this country.

Gary Abernathy:  I think Americans do want a lot of those things, and they do poll as popular item by item.

But Americans love ice cream.  If you did a poll, you would find out almost 100 percent of Americans love ice cream.  It doesn't mean they approve of spending trillions of dollars to give everyone free ice cream.  Not everybody can have things that we all agree, gee, that would be nice.

But, at some point in time, there comes a point where we have to say, we don't have any money.  I mean, we're — I don't care if we're talking $6 trillion, $3 trillion, $1 trillion.  It doesn't exist.  So I think the American people know that too.

Yes, we'd like to have all these things, but our great-grandchildren pay for it?

Judy Woodruff:  One other piece of analysis that's been out there, and it came from James Carville, a longtime Democratic strategist on this program Wednesday night, Jonathan, essentially said this woke business has gone too far, the focus on injustice in our society.

Does he have a point or not?

Jonathan Capehart:  He has a point up to a point.

I understand where James Carville is coming from.  I have heard the quote in full and in context, I get where he's coming from.

But what he's done is, he's basically said to the base of the Democratic Party:  Who cares what you think?

He calls it wokeness.  Is it — it's not wokeness to want to be treated fairly by the police.  It's not wokeness to want law enforcement to not view you instantly as a criminal, instantly as a bad guy.  It's not wokeness to demand that our nation's history be taught and reflected accurately.  That's not wokeness.

That's — at a minimum, it's asking for dignity and respect.  And so for someone, a Democratic strategist like James Carville, to say those things basically to the base of the Democratic Party is really unfortunate, because I think we can talk about these issues of injustice and talk about how to move the country forward together.  These don't have to be two separate conversations.

Judy Woodruff:  This is a larger debate that's been out there, Gary.

Gary Abernathy:  And I actually agree with a lot of what Jonathan just said.  I think that we can talk about the role of slavery, the role of racism in this country.  And we should do more of that.  I agree with that.

But there doesn't have to be — I think what happens is with the wokeness, what a lot of us think of as the wokeness, the cancel culture, is that we have to create villains.  We have to demonize.  To lift up one set of people means we have to demonize another set of people.

And that's what turns a lot of people off to having the conversation.

Jonathan Capehart:  No, I mean, I understand where the sentiment comes from about demonizing people.

But — the people I talked to and the people who I'm associated with and related to, we're not about demonizing anybody.  We're about — could you recognize for a hot minute what we go through?  Can you recognize that there was a clip of a Youngkin supporter saying, well, if young people just treat police with respect when they're stopped, everything will be OK?

No, that is not true.  That is not true.  And so for — until someone like her is able to see that perspective, we're always going to have this problem.

Judy Woodruff:  Like that young person.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

We tend to — on all things, whether we're talking about Critical Race Theory, which is not a thing being taught in Virginia schools, but it's a thing.  I mean, it's a theory that a lot of people would like to have taught.

Jonathan Capehart:  In — well, it…

Gary Abernathy:  Go ahead.

Jonathan Capehart:  It's taught in law school.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.  But there have been — I mean, there have been pushes to get it more into curriculums.

Jonathan Capehart:  Well, that's a larger conversation that we don't have time for.

Judy Woodruff:  It's a larger conversation.

Gary Abernathy:  But there are — it's like one extreme and the other — or the other.

We need to talk, to recognize more about what?  As I said, slavery and race and racism have played a role throughout history in the building of this country, and do that honestly.  And white people shouldn't be afraid to say, you know what, we really haven't done that well, and we need to do a better job of that recognize it, but without making us feel like the villains for doing it.

And I think there is a lot of that.  There's a lot of emphasis on white people need to feel a certain amount of guilt over this.  And we need to get past that.

Judy Woodruff:  I want you to make a comment, and then I want to bring up something else.

Jonathan Capehart:  Sure.  Yes.

I'm not — I'm not asking for guilt.  But I do think white people have to get over the — feeling villainized just even when the word race is used in a sentence.  That's all.

Gary Abernathy:  And you may be right.

Judy Woodruff:  It's a conversation we should continue to have next Friday.

(LAUGHTER)

Judy Woodruff:  But speaking of all this, someone who I think represents what black Americans have meant to this country was memorialized today.  And that was, of course, Colin Powell.

There was a service for him.  He was remembered as someone who is an example for generations to come, someone who worked across party lines.

In just a few words, Jonathan, what is his legacy?  What should we take away from this man?

Jonathan Capehart:  He was a statesman.  He was a warrior statesman.  He was the best of this country.

He — when he was thinking about running for President in 19 — in the '96 election, you know what?  I was a young editorial writer at The New York Daily News.  I was a big fan of President Clinton.  But the idea that a black man would run for President and had a chance to win left me a little conflicted, because he was a walking role model of who we should be as Americans, but also a walking role model for me, a young black man, seeing a black man like him walking through the corridors of power as if he was just walking in the park.

We need more — we need more people like Colin Powell, regardless of party.

Judy Woodruff:  Admired by so many.  Just 30 seconds.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes, I can't improve on that, but — other than to say, to me, Colin Powell always represented a very classy person, just conducted himself with class.

Even when he was upset about something, even when he was angry about something, even in his criticisms of people, it was done with style and class, which is why I think he was so widely admired across the divide.

Judy Woodruff:  Well, we remember him fondly today.

Gary Abernathy:  Yes.

Judy Woodruff:  Gary Abernathy, Jonathan Capehart, thank you both.

Jonathan Capehart:  Thanks, Judy.

Gary Abernathy:  Thanks, Judy.

AMERICA DIVIDED - Sasse on Growing Tolerance for Lies

"Sen. Sasse (R) on the rise of ‘anti-tribes’ and a growing American tolerance for lies" PBS NewsHour 10/23/2018

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In his new book “Them: Why We Hate Each Other--and How to Heal,” Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb) reflects on a growing “rootlessness” in America as local communities erode and our dependence on isolating technology grows.  Judy Woodruff sits down with the senator, who also weighs in on the decay of truth in political discourse, his vision for government and how we can repair our fragmented society.

POLITICS - Our Broken Congress

"The great struggle of getting anything done when partisanship reigns" PBS NewsHour 7/21/2017

SUGGESTION:  The leadership of each party, in each branch of Congress (Senate and House), walk out the National Mall and and play Russian Roulette with a revolver with 2 bullets.  The survivors win and get to have their agenda. 😉

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Congress these days has an obvious theme, more blame than legislation.  Congressional Republicans have taken a sharply partisan route in their health care reform efforts, with multiple failed and contentious attempts to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  How did we end up with such an extreme partisan divide?  Lisa Desjardins looks back.

UNITED STATES - Divided We Stall

"How did today’s government become so divided?" PBS NewsHour 2/24/2016

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Separation of powers is a core component of American democracy, but political divisions rose to new heights this year as Congressional Republicans clashed with the Obama administration on everything from budget blueprints to Supreme Court nominations.  Gwen Ifill talks to E.J. Dionne of the Washington Post and Matt Lewis of the Daily Caller for a closer look at today’s caustic political landscape.

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  Separation of powers is at the heart of American democracy, and it seems the powerful have never been more separate.

Yesterday, Republicans said they will block any nominee the President sends for the Supreme Court.  They have also rejected outright his plan to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and refused earlier this year to grant even pro-forma consideration to his budget blueprint.

Against this backdrop of resistance, the rise of Republican front-runner Donald Trump.

So, how different, how unprecedented, how permanent is this growing split?

For that, we turn to two authors of books about the political turning point at hand.  E.J. Dionne is a liberal columnist for The Washington Post, and the author of “Why the Right Went Wrong.”  And conservative Matt Lewis is a senior contributor for The Daily Caller and author of “Too Dumb to Fail.”

Gentlemen, thank you both for joining us.

Matt Lewis, what is happening, if anything, to the Republican party?

MATT K. LEWIS, Author, “Too Dumb to Fail”:  Well, I think, with the rise of Donald Trump, clearly, you have a populist moment.

I really do worry that we’re going to — if Donald Trump wins the nomination, he will redefine what it means to be a conservative, what it means to be a Republican.  And no longer will it be a party about ideas, about free markets, about defending the unborn.

And it instead will become a white, identity politics, angry, protectionist, populist party.  And I think that is a radically different direction and something that, fingers crossed, will not happen.

GWEN IFILL:  But, E.J., given what we have seen unfold here in Washington just in the past few days, it seems like it’s about more than Donald Trump.

E.J. DIONNE, Author, “Why the Right Went Wrong”:  Oh, absolutely.

I think this is something that has been happening to conservatism over 50 years.  I mean, the first sentence in my book is, "The history of contemporary American conservatism is a story of disappointment and betrayal."

And I think Republican politicians have made a series promises to their base that they couldn’t possibly keep, about the rise — about shrinking government, about rolling back cultural change, changing the ethnic makeup of the country.

And the base has gotten angrier and angrier.  And I think that has led to Donald Trump.  And I think the leadership in Congress has had to take and has chosen to take a harder and harder line against a Democratic President.

I mean, you can say, of course, Democrats have opposed presidential nominees for the Supreme Court in the past, but I think what you have seen over the last few weeks is really unprecedented.

GWEN IFILL:  Well…

E.J. DIONNE:  We won’t even hold a hearing on your nominee.

And there was a story in The Des Moines Register today that Chuck Grassley wouldn’t even meet with the President to talk about a nominee.  At least that’s where it was.  That really goes beyond.

UKRAINE - Anti-Government Protests

"As anti-government voices grow in Kiev, police begin cracking down on protests" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 12/9/2013

GWEN IFILL (Newshour):  The president of the Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, is backing a call for talks with the country's opposition, in an attempt to quell weeks of protests.  Tensions are running high in Kiev tonight, however, as pro-Europe demonstrators are barricading protest camps which police have threatened to disperse.

On Sunday, a party-like atmosphere prevailed in the Ukrainian capital, Kiev.  Several hundred thousand people angry over what they see as the government's tilt toward Russia and away from Europe demanded the government's resignation.  It was the largest crowd yet.  The night ended with protesters pulling down a statue of Vladimir Lenin.

Today, signs of a new crackdown appeared.  Riot troops encircled some camp sites, and eventually began dismantling protesters' barricades.  Opposition leaders warned their followers not to provoke the police.

ARSENIY YATSENYUK, United Opposition Leader (through interpreter):  In any case, don't touch the police.  Don't beat them.  If they destroy our camps, we will go for new barricades and set them up tomorrow.

GWEN IFILL:  Elsewhere, masked men armed with guns raided the party headquarters of a jailed opposition leader, Yulia Tymoshenko, and a state prosecutor warned protest leaders they face arrest.

VIKTOR PSHONKA, General Prosecutor,Ukraine (through interpreter):  The calls to rally organizers show total disrespect to law and a desire to satisfy their political ambitions for any price.

But it won't work.  If they ignore the enforcement of judges' verdicts, disrespect the law and the constitution of Ukraine, they will be held responsible.

GWEN IFILL:  President Viktor Yanukovych announced he will meet with his predecessors tomorrow to discuss the crisis.

"What's the U.S. role in calming Ukraine unrest?" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 12/9/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Now in the third week of widening unrest, Ukrainian protesters are bracing for a crackdown.  Gwen Ifill talks to David Herszenhorn of The New York Times about what's going on behind the scenes and the outlook for a solution to end the civil crisis, plus how the United States has reached out to the government to urge caution.

AMERICA - Anti-Government Sovereign Citizens

These idiots actually think you can have a society (or a nation) without a social contract, like federal or state constitutions.  NO CITIZEN is 'sovereign' unless he/she lives on an island by themselves.  More from kooks of the world.

Vegas arrests cast light on anti-government ‘sovereign citizens’ movement" by Erin McClam, NBC News 8/23/2013

A Las Vegas couple who plotted to kidnap and kill police officers are part of a growing movement whose adherents believe they aren’t subject to laws and follow a complex theory about the secret enslavement of American citizens, authorities say.

The couple spent hundreds of hours developing a plot to attract attention to the movement, a cause known as “sovereign citizens,” which holds that police do not have legitimate power, authorities said.

The two shopped for guns, found a vacant house and rigged it to bind captives to cross beams during interrogation, and they planned to subject officers to their form of a trial for civil rights violations, authorities said.

Authorities have linked the “sovereign citizens” movement to the killing of police officers in the past.  After two deputies in Louisiana were killed in a shootout last year, police said some of the seven people arrested had ties to the movement.

And three years ago in Arkansas, a father-son team of adherents to the movement killed two police officers before they themselves were killed in a separate gun battle with authorities.

In Las Vegas, an undercover officer was with the couple and documented their plans, police told reporters Thursday.  Las Vegas police Lt. James Seebock characterized it as a domestic terrorism plot.

Arrested were David Allen Brutsche, 42, an ex-convict child sex offender from California, and Devon Campbell Newman, 67, police said.  They were charged with attempted murder.

Brutsche trained by posing as a cop and putting a gun to Newman’s head to take her into custody, according to a police report.  They planned to capture police by following their cars and seizing them when the officers got out to make a traffic stop, police said.

The FBI, in a public alert about the “sovereign citizens” movement in 2010, said that adherents don’t believe they have to answer to government authority.  They set up sham courts and clog the real justice system with frivolous lawsuits, the FBI said.

The bureau said that the movement should not be confused with domestic militias:  While “sovereign citizens” followers often use illegal weapons, guns are secondary to their anti-government and anti-tax beliefs.

The Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups, says that the movement has grown since the late 2000s but says it can’t know how many believers there are, in part because the movement has no central leadership.

“Sovereign citizens” trace alternate versions of American history, the center says.

Some believe that the American government secretly replaced the system designed by the founding fathers with a version of maritime law and enslaved citizens, and that judges around the country are in on the secret.

Some also believe that the government, at the birth of each child in the United States, sets up a corporate shell account and assigns the rights of the child to the account-holders, the center says.

By filing frivolous lawsuits, “sovereign citizens” adherents believe they can free themselves from the corporate masters and access the money in their shell accounts, the center says.

POLITICS - Federal Government Overreach

"Virginia Attorney General Criticizes Federal Government Overreach in New Book" PBS Newshour 3/5/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Judy Woodruff talks with Ken Cuccinelli, attorney general of Virginia and gubernatorial candidate in that state, about his new book, "The Last Line of Defense," which explores the role of the federal government.  Cuccinelli was the first state attorney general to sue the federal government over the health care reform law.

POLITICS - The White House Petition Site

Are you aware of:

Click image to go to site

Once registered you can sign existing (open) petitions or create your own.

EGYPT - The Forgotten in the Political Dispute

"In Cairo Crisis, the Poor Find Dashed Hopes" by KAREEM FAHIM, New York Times 12/13/2012

Excerpt

A faded poster of Hosni Mubarak hangs on a wall in a crumbling neighborhood here, reminding residents of an empty pledge to find jobs for young people. Down the street, a campaign banner for his successor, Mohamed Morsi, hangs across the road, a reminder of more recent promises unkept.

In the neighborhood, called Boulaq, so long neglected that houses regularly collapse, there was little expectation that Mr. Mubarak would provide. But Mr. Morsi’s disregard has been much harder to take.

“We had high hopes in God, that things would improve,” Fathi Hussein said as he built a desk of dark wood for one of his clients, who are dwindling. “I elected a president to be good for the country. I did not elect him to impose his opinions on me.”

Away from the protests and violence that have marked the painful struggle over Egypt’s identity in the run-up to a referendum on Saturday on a constitution, residents of Boulaq have their own reasons to be consumed with the crisis. The chants of the protesters, for bread and freedom, resonate in Boulaq’s alleyways. In many of its industrial workshops, passed from struggling fathers to penniless sons, disappointment with the president, his Muslim Brotherhood supporters as well as the leaders of the opposition grows daily.

There is a sense in Boulaq that the raging arguments would be better resolved in places like this, where most Egyptians live, carrying the burdens of poverty with no help from an indifferent state, and where the revolution’s promise of dignity is long overdue.

CHINA - 18th Communist Party Congress

"China's Communist Party Congress Faces Political Transition, Corruption Issues" (Part-1) PBS Newshour 11/8/2012

JEFFREY BROWN (Newshour): And we turn now to China, where a much different political selection process has begun at the 18th Communist Party Congress.

We begin our coverage with a report from Lindsey Hilsum of Independent Television News.

LINDSEY HILSUM: State-of-the-art technology at the service of old-fashioned propaganda. The film's called "A Decade of Glory," and it's all thanks to the Chinese Communist Party.

This afternoon, Mao Tse-Tung stared down at an empty Tiananmen Square, the area outside the Great Hall of the People cleared of people. Earlier, a woman had tried to scatter protest leaflets. She had no time to explain her cause before being bundled away.

Security is tight, as you would expect on the first day of such an important meeting. But they have brought in some rather extraordinary measures. The handles have been taken off the back doors of taxis to stop people from jumping out. You're not allowed to fly toy airplanes or balloons or carry ping-pong balls or buy a knife from the supermarket.

Inside, 2,000-plus delegates gathered. In theory, they debate policy and elect a new leadership. This is the last Congress as leader for President Hu Jintao, who's stepping down. In practice, he and the party elite have made the important decisions in secret in advance.

Pride of place on the platform went to 86-year-old former President Jiang Zemin. The old guard still pull the strings. As Hu spoke for 93 minutes about his decade in power, the man expected to succeed him, Xi Jinping, took notes. He will inherit a party which knows the people are angry about the growing gap between rich and poor and corruption amongst the elite.

PRESIDENT HU JINTAO, China (through translator): Opposing corruption and building an honest and clean government is a clear stance the party has been adhering to and is an important political issue that people have been paying attention to. If we fail to handle this issue well, it could prove fatal to the party and even cause its collapse and the fall of the states.

LINDSEY HILSUM: Strong words, but they have been said before, and the families of some current politburo members are suspiciously wealthy. The delegates, who come from all over China, poured out into the sunshine. They know their lines.

MAN (through translator): I'm proud of the Communist Party. It created miracles in history. It's found a path that leads to the rise of the Chinese nation.

LINDSEY HILSUM: In the southern city of Shenzhen, evening exercises take place under the gaze of Deng Xiaoping, the leader who introduced economic reform and opening up more than 30 years ago. Since then, Chinese people's lives have been transformed.

But Deng's successors at today's Congress show no sign of bringing political reform. They still hope the people will be content to make money and not question the power of the Communist Party and the wealth of its leaders.

"On the Eve of Political Transition in China, Assessing Hurdles and Global Role" (Part-2) PBS Newshour 11/8/2012

Excerpt

SUMMARY: As Chinese President Hu Jintao passes off leadership to a successor, China faces a slight economic slowdown after a decade of explosive economic growth, a growing middle class with shifting expectations and recent charges of political corruption. Margaret Warner gets analysis from David Lampton of Johns Hopkins University.

POLITICS - 2012 Voters Have Spoken, What Now?

"We Need a Little Fear" by JONATHAN HAIDT, New York Times 11/7/2012

Excerpt

THE voters have spoken. So, what now? How will our still divided government deal with our mounting threats and challenges?

Shared fear can help.

A Bedouin proverb says, “Me against my brother, my brothers and me against my cousins, then my cousins and me against strangers.” Human beings are pretty good at uniting to fight at whatever level is most important at a given moment. This is why every story about a team of warriors or superheroes features an internal rivalry, but all hatchets are buried just before the climactic final battle in which the team vanquishes the external enemy.

A national election focuses our attention on a single level of competition — political party versus political party. Let’s call that “me and my brother against our cousin.” But after that, it’s time for our national team to come together to fight the many threats and enemies that confront us. Let’s unite with our cousins to fight the stranger!

Except that we didn’t do it four years ago, when things looked even grimmer, and there’s no sign that we’re going to do it now. Since the 1990s we’ve been stuck at one level — party versus party. Partisanship is not a bad thing. We need multiple teams to develop competing visions for voters to choose among. But when so many of our leaders can’t even occasionally place national interest before party interest, we’ve crossed over into hyperpartisanship. And that’s a very bad thing, because it amplifies other problems like the debt crisis, the absence of a rational immigration policy and our aging infrastructure.

We the people bear some of the blame for what’s happened in Congress, for we, too, have become more angrily partisan. So what can we do to pull ourselves up to that higher level? How can we unite not just with our brothers and sisters, but with our cousins?

One way is to focus on common threats, rather than on common ground, just as the Bedouin proverb suggests. It’s only the threat of the stranger that brings the extended family together. A physical attack by outsiders — like Pearl Harbor or 9/11 — binds people together like nothing else. But what if there is no such attack? Can trade competition with China do it? What about a threat we created ourselves?

Well, that depends. A basic principle of moral psychology is that “morality binds and blinds.” In many pre-agricultural societies, groups achieved trust and unity by circling around sacred objects. In modern societies, much larger groups bind themselves together by treating certain books, flags, leaders or ideals as sacred and by symbolically circling around them. But if your team circles too fast, you lose the ability to see clearly or think for yourself. You go blind to evidence that contradicts your group’s moral consensus, and you become enraged at teammates who suggest that the other side is not entirely bad (as New Jersey’s governor, Chris Christie, is now finding out).

Unlike a foreign attack, a problem that threatens only one side’s sacred values can therefore divide us, rather than unite us. It’s as though a giant asteroid is headed for the Earth. One side sees it coming and screams, but the louder it screams, the more stubbornly the other side covers its ears and averts its eyes. Here are a few of the asteroids hurtling toward us, which half of us can already see with our naked eyes:

• Rising temperatures. The left has been raising the alarm about global warming since the 1990s. It’s a threat to the environment and to poor people around the world — sacred values for liberals — but the right largely denies the scientific consensus, in part because many of the remedies would require limits on industry and intervention into markets (which would violate sacred values for some conservatives). Hurricane Sandy gave us a small taste of what’s likely to happen more frequently.
• Rising entitlements. The right has railed against entitlement spending since the 1960s, and its frustration boiled over in the Tea Party movement. The welfare state is a threat to traditional conservative values of personal responsibility (people have less incentive to plan for their own future) and fiscal solvency. Despite the logical errors in Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” comments, we do face bankruptcy when the baby boomers retire and a shrinking percentage of workers must pay the ever growing expenses of a ballooning class of retirees. Yet the Democrats want to “protect” older Americans, students and almost everyone else from the need to sacrifice.
• Rising inequality. The left has been protesting rising inequality since Ronald Reagan cut taxes on the rich and benefits for the poor, and a great deal of recent scholarship documents the socially, morally and economically damaging effects of separating the haves ever further from the have-nots. Nearly all the gains in productivity in the last 30 years have gone to the wealthiest, but the right justifies the trend and denies its toxicity.
• Rising births to unmarried women. In 1960, 5 percent of American children were born to unmarried women. In 2010, that number was more than 40 percent. Conservatives treat the traditional family as the irreplaceable building block of society and are therefore horrified that unmarried motherhood will soon be the national norm. The left has been ambivalent about the value of marriage (at least, before the push for gay marriage), sometimes viewing it as a patriarchal institution and reluctant to admit that a stable marriage is very good for children.

AFGHANISTAN - Tail of a Corrupt Government

"Intractable Afghan Graft Hampering U.S. Strategy" by MATTHEW ROSENBERG and GRAHAM BOWLEY, New York Times 3/7/2012

Excerpt

For the past few months, possibly the most intriguing poker game in Kabul has been taking place in the sprawling pink sitting room of the man at the center of one of the most public corruption scandals in the world, the near collapse of Kabul Bank.

The players include people tied to President Hamid Karzai’s inner circle, many of whom have profited from the crony capitalism that has come to define Afghanistan’s economic order, and nearly brought down Kabul Bank. The game’s stakes “aren’t too big — a few thousand dollars up or down,” one of the participants said.

Betting thousands of dollars a night in a country where most families live off a few hundred dollars a year would seem like a bad play for Sherkhan Farnood, the founder and former chairman of Kabul Bank, the country’s biggest. His assets are supposed to be frozen, and he is still facing the threat of prosecution over a scandal that could end up costing the Afghan government — and, by extension, the Western countries that pay most of its expenses — almost $900 million, a sum that nearly equals the government’s total annual revenues.

But Mr. Farnood, who in 2008 won about $143,000 at a World Series of Poker event in Europe, appears to know a good wager when he sees one. Despite years of urging and oversight by American advisers, Mr. Karzai’s government has yet to prosecute a high-level corruption case. And now many American officials say that they have little expectation that Mr. Farnood’s case will prove to be the exception — or that Washington will try to do much about it, especially after violent anti-American protests in recent weeks have sowed fresh doubts in the Obama administration over the viability of the mission in Afghanistan.

I feel sorry for the Afghan people. They deserve much more than a corrupt government doomed to failure.

CALIFORNIA - Government Agency Destroys Records?

"State seismic regulators destroy key electronic records" by Corey G. Johnson, California Watch 12/23/2011

Excerpt

he office that regulates California school construction routinely destroyed key documents that might have shed light on its lax enforcement of earthquake safety standards – despite a binding agreement it has with the State Archives to preserve public records.

For the past five years, the Division of the State Architect has erased the entire computer hard drives and copies of records saved on computer servers within a month of an employee's departure. Those records included all e-mail correspondence, directives, meeting notes and minutes, policy documents, and appointment calendars.

Such records help explain how enforcement decisions were developed and carried out. The retention agreement between the two offices shows that state regulators were not allowed to destroy correspondence and meeting minutes from its top managers without clearance from the State Archives. The records should have been saved for at least four years and then transferred to the State Archives, according to the retention documents.

The destroyed documents take on greater significance now that the state architect's office has come under scrutiny for its lax enforcement and questionable application of seismic safety standards. In reporting about the state's system of oversight, California Watch was able to obtain some of these documents through other sources – before records were destroyed. But there is no way to know how many records have been forever lost.

Eric Lamoureux, spokesman for the Department of General Services, which oversees the state architect's office, said the office views all e-mails not saved in individual school project files or any shared internal databases as "informal communications" that can be destroyed. Lamoureux said the department didn't notify the State Archives because there isn't a requirement to do so for "transitory" records.

The background issue, is this policy an attempt at coverup or bureaucratic laxity?

I find it hard to believe that an government entity does NOT know that ALL documents the entity has may be subject of legal proceedings and should be kept. Which brings up the question of a California State policy mandating that ALL state agencies keep their records, at the very least on computer backups.

OPINION - Today, Governance by Compromise are Excoriated as Hypocrites

"Compromise - the Way to Govern or a Dirty Word in Politics" by Cliff Wilson, Cliff's Notes 9/5/2011

During the first half of the nineteenth century there were In Washington DC three legislators (most often in the Senate) who came to be associated with the way that the national government functioned. They were John C. Calhoun of SC, the apologist for slavery and states rights and even secession, and Daniel Webster of Massachusetts, who was seen as both a staunch Unionist and an opponent of slavery and a supporter of those abolitionists who pursued peaceful means to accomplish their goal,

The third member of this triumvirate was Henry Clay of Kentucky, known as the Great Compromiser. He owned slaves but opposed the institution of slavery and so was often attacked by folks on both sides of that moral issue. He believed that only by compromise could government work. He believed that compromise was when two or more sides to a question got something they wanted - wanted it enough that they could accept the other side(s) getting something. He is credited with putting to together the Compromise of 1850, a series of bills, that saved the union from threatened southern secession and resultant civil war ten years before that happened. And since most historians see the South in a much stronger position, economically and militarily in 1850 then they were in 1860 it can be argued that his compromise saved the union.

Today America is in the worst economic crisis since the Great depression of the 1930's. But in today's politics compromise has become a dirty word. Where national leaders like Norris and Vandenberg, LBJ and Tip O’Neill are lauded for their ability to get opposing sides to reason together, today, those who compromise are excoriated as flip-floppers, opportunists and hypocrites.

Since the 1994 election of the radical Republicans under Newt Gingrich, with his Contract for America, the right in this country has demanded an ideological purity, more and more precise and limited, from it’s adherents. If the right wants white and the left wants black there will be no gray -- as far as they are concerned it’s white or nothing.

After almost twenty years of this intransigence, and especially the last three on the part of the right, the left in American politics (liberals, progressives, Move-On.org, AFL-CIO) has begun to demand an ideological purity on the part of its side. Though the left seems still willing to accept a compromise here and there depending on the specific issue, it is being more and more pushed to the extreme ‘to fight fire with fire’ and demand that its representatives not concede points to the right, which doesn’t want to compromise anyway, but to hold fast for left positions.

Now comes a President who believes in Clay’s injunction that compromise is they way to govern. Problem is no one wants to compromise with him and it does take two to compromise. So he modifies his proposals before presenting them, incorporating ideas and public critiques from the opposition in the belief that it will make the proposal more palatable to the right. It doesn’t. Whatever he suggests, regardless of the number of Republican ideas (and Health Care and Financial Regulation are full of them) they reject the proposals out of hand. Anything this President proposes they demand be rejected.

So are we governing America today? No! We have a dysfunctional and in many ways a non-functional national government (and likewise in the case of many of the states). It is one party rule and one faction of one party rule or it is ruin.

What then is the answer. Henry Clay said he’d rather be right than be President. Should Obama continue his crusade for compromise even if as it seems it may cause him to be a one term President?

Or should Obama exercise Leadership?: Present programs without pre- compromise -- campaign for them using Teddy Roosevelt’s Bully Pulpit, FDR’s fireside chats and Truman’s tour across the country and rally the people of America behind his proposals. Present them in simple understandable terms: e.g. Health Care for All; Quality Public Education; Jobs, Jobs, Jobs; Let the Rich Share the Burden; Government out of People’s Private Lives. And run his billion dollar campaign on his set of positions. Win and defeat the right wing Radical Republicans. Then with four years and no re-election possible he can offer his vision of government by compromise - something both the right (defeated) and the left (tired and frightened by how bad it got) may be ready to accept.

A great Leader must stand for something - and such a Leader can compromise with those honestly willing to, in order to accomplish the things he stands for. Obama has, in the history of his office, models of those who led and compromised when needed and who refused to if necessary: Jackson, Lincoln, TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Reagan. He also has the model of those who either stubbornly rejected any compromise, e.g. the Adamses, Taylor, Andrew Johnson, or those who failed to lead, e.g. Hayes, Cleveland, Taft, Coolidge, Ford. It’s Obama’s choice which model to follow - it’s America’s future that rests on the choice he makes. Lead then Compromise or Compromise then try to Lead.

POLITICS - Easing the Senate Confirmation Logjam

"Lawmakers Seek to Unclog Road to Confirmation" by CARL HULSE, New York Times 4/24/2011

Excerpt

Hoping to unclog the Senate and spare scores of presidential appointees from what is often a grueling confirmation process, leading lawmakers in both parties are moving to cut the number of administration posts that are subject to Senate approval.

The proposal to end Senate review of about 200 executive branch positions would be the most serious effort in recent years to pare the chamber’s constitutional power of advice and consent. It amounts to a rare voluntary surrender of Congressional clout, and it has high-caliber, bipartisan support with the endorsement of the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and the Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky.

“We are losing very good people because the process has become so onerous, so lengthy and so duplicative,” said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and a leading advocate of the bill. “Why should there be a full F.B.I background check back to age 18 for an individual serving on a part-time board?”

Ever since the Senate rejected President George Bush’s selection of John G. Tower as secretary of defense in 1989, Senate confirmations have become bruising public affairs that delve deep into a nominee’s background. President Obama’s initial picks for several cabinet posts withdrew their nominations after the process turned up embarrassing details.

Several presidents, frustrated by delays, have sought to bypass the process by making so-called recess appointments while Congress is not in session. Mr. Obama used that tactic last summer to install the administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

Backers of the confirmation measure say they want to ease what they call an arduous chore for midlevel nominees trying to navigate the Senate in a supercharged partisan era. While it would not affect senior positions, the legislation, and a related proposal to expedite filling about 250 part-time positions, is intended to reverse an explosion in confirmable posts from about 280 when President John F. Kennedy took office in 1961 to 1,400 today.

ABOUT TIME!

Then again, are politics-before-governance types going to actually give up this tool to bash an Administration in the hands of the "other" side?

I, for one, would like to see this happen.