The Price of Believing in the Law

Chinese rights attorney Xu Zhiyong is yet another activist who is being prosecuted by the Chinese government for trying to practice the law. The New York Times reports on his detention and arrest, on a bogus charge of tax evasion. The law in China is something that exists as a paper mache facade intended to give the ruling Communist Party cover to do things like host the Olympics. Yet it provides no recourse qua law and indeed the law is a reflection of the rule of the Party over any legal structure. To wit, the Times reports:

Last week, China’s justice minister gave a speech saying lawyers should above all obey the Communist Party and help foster a harmonious society. To improve discipline, the minister said, all law firms in China would be sent party liaisons to “guide their work.”

Certainly any other rights lawyers who disobey the “guidance” of CCP “liaisons” will face a similar fate as Xu, to be disappeared within their own legal system around bogus charges that serve only to further undermine the rule of law these lawyers are striving to uphold.

Sadly, I doubt the international community, from the US on down, will ever do or say anything to encourage the Chinese government to honor the rule of law. And so the Chinese government will continue to get away with the use of law as a means of suppressing dissent.

Political Terrorists

Steve Pearlstein is right, the teabagger healthcare townhall protests, Republican politicians, and conservative media figures like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh are political terrorists. Plain and simple.

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they’ve given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They’ve become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

Watching video from townhalls last night in Tampa and St. Louis, or early this week in Connecticut, it is crystal clear that the teabaggers only strategy is to disrupt events and silence opposition. They have no substantive idea. They have no proposals of their own. They simply don’t want this problem to be solved and are resorting to increasingly violent and threatening means to further their opposition.

No, It Needs Saying

Mike Lux at Open Left writes:

Look, this should be obvious, but apparently it’s not: when some big piece of our economy is really messed up, but some major corporate interest is making lots and lots of money off the system, if that corporate interest doesn’t object to the “reform” being proposed, whatever legislation being proposed will not solve the actual problem. The 98-0 votes that folks like David Broder love and extol, the bipartisan bill signing ceremonies that thrill the hell out of everyone in DC – they don’t actually solve or resolve anything important.

If Democrats take the easy path, and get that big bipartisan love fest on the White House lawn, health care will still be messed up in all the ways it’s messed up now: health care costs (and the federal budget deficit) will still be spiraling up and up, the number of uninsured will keep going up as well, people who lose their jobs or have pre-existing conditions will still be priced out of the ability to get insurance. And instead of congratulating us for our great bipartisan compromise, voters will be pissed. President Obama and Congressional Democrats need to grit their teeth and stick to the business of comprehensive reform. It will make the insurance companies, and the Republicans, really mad. But failing to actually solve the problem AGAIN is a train wreck. Stick with it, folks, put your noses to the grindstone, and do what needs to be done.

It does need to be said. Now, it isn’t a surprise to anyone who is paying attention to the degree that, say, liberal bloggers are paying attention. But there is a clear inability for Democrats in Washington and insider organizations to see the forest from the trees here. At some point, this thing either needs to have teeth or it needs to be put on hold until the votes are there to pass something with teeth. In effect, what Lux is saying is a direct rebuttal to the Baucus strategy to get a bipartisan bill (supported in strong terms by President Obama). As Matt Yglesias notes, Baucus is uniquely responsible for deflating progressive passion for healthcare reform.

Lux’s point brings me back to something that I have often felt and said regarding Democratic politics in Washington. This is a situation where there are two possible explanations for the pursuit of a bipartisan resolution that makes everyone happy. The first, which seems to be what Lux is implying, is that some people in DC just haven’t noticed that this path won’t produce meaningful change and as a result, Democrats may well be punished for not getting the job done on healthcare reform. The second, which I think is the correct explanation, is that many Democrats simply do not believe that a failure to dramatically change the realities in healthcare insurance and delivery in America with new legislation would not be a legislative failure. They have a vested interest in the continued prosperity of the health insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the private hospital industry (among others). As such, they don’t seek to help everyone if it comes at the expense of their donor base.

Sadly, the outcome of healthcare reform legislation seems to be controlled to a greater degree by the empowered conservative Democratic minority in the Senate and House, under the guidance of Max Baucus, Mike Ross, and with peripheral messaging support from a President who mistakenly continues to embrace the goal of bipartisanship over efficacy in healthcare legislation.

The Possibility of Left-Wing Governance

Chris Bowers asks “if, given the current structure of our federal government, it is even possible to have the federal government operate to the left of national public opinion in the way that it often operates to the right of national public opinion.” While identifying some key obstacles to left-wing governance — de facto requirement of 60 votes to pass legislation in the Senate, massive corporate donations to elected officials, small-state bias & difficulties even with large Democratic majorities — Bowers isn’t optimistic. To me, though, the only one of these that is impactful in any sort of ontological way is the influence of corporate money in politics and the disproportionate power corporate money has in small states (as Nate Silver’s analysis shows).

Stronger leadership from the Senate could create a dynamic where the consequences of reactionary filibusters on every piece of liberal legislation have consequences. There was a time, namely that of Republican majority throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, when it did not take 60 votes to pass a bill in the Senate. Only with the return of the Republican Party to the minority did we see this radical turn that has effectively changed the rules of the Senate. A Democratic leader with more spine than Harry Reid and a caucus with less bias towards conservative policies pushed for twenty years by the DLC would surely respond differently to this scenario.

The same can be said about the level of energy needed to pass liberal legislation even while we maintain large Democratic majorities, as we do now. An untangling of Democrats from the Republican-Lite model pushed by so many operatives and observers within the Beltway would enable a different set of ontic possibilities. Gradually shifting the behavior patterns of conserva-Dems who vote far to the right of their district would enable far more to be possible in the House. This can be achieved either through strong-arming Blue Dogs by leadership or successful primaries by more liberal Democrats. This would either diminish the functional power of the Blue Dog caucus or shrink its size. Simultaneously, a strengthening of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, along with the liberal tri-caucus, would create a much different environment for legislation. If the CPC and tri-caucus could exert power over legislation the way Blue Dogs currently do, we would immediately see a leftward shift in the output from the House. This is something we are seeing the CPC try to move towards in a very concerted effort in the healthcare fight; their success would have the potential to leave lasting marks on the ideological shaping of legislation under large Democratic majorities. Put this together with stronger Democratic leadership in the Senate and punative measures that discourage reactionary filibusters to the point of neutering them and you’re very likely to see better left-wing governance based on the removal or reduction of two out of Bowers four areas of concern.

But the scope of corporate influence on politics, especially their wholesale ownership of so many small state senators, is a fundamental problem that is nearly impossible to counter. The obvious path to remove these obstacles to left-wing governance is to push for public financing of federal elections. There is no chance that the corporate world, nor conservative politicians would let this happen without a massive fight, as they know that their money is the biggest obstacle to reform in any area.

Before we can adequately assess the likelihood of major campaign finance reform, we have to recognize that at no point in time has an American president or a majority of the Democratic Party pushed for public financing of federal elections. Today public financing may not be possible. But it is impossible to suggest that it is fundamentally impossible while the issue has lacked any meaningful advocacy from the people with the largest microphones. Change is surely possible if there is meaningful leadership on the issue. The question really becomes, who has the courage to stand up to America’s corporate interests? Who will stand up for the public in the face of campaign contributions? This is an issue that will be defined by the courage or lack there of found in Democratic leaders.

There’s no doubt that Bowers is right and there are huge fundamental hurdles to left-wing governance in America. But they are not insurmountable, at least not with leadership. The question I have isn’t whether left-wing governance is possible, but is left-wing leadership possible? That, in many ways, precedes any question about governance, for without leadership we will never get to see governance actualized.

17 Year Old vs Sarah Palin

William Nelligan has something to say to Sarah Palin about her brand of divisive politics. Nelligan is seventeen and he’s penned Alaska’s former governor an open letter on YouthRadio.org (cross posted on Huffington Post). While Nelligan isn’t offering a brand new slate of charges against Palin’s unique style of self-righteous willful ignorance, he writes with the clarity driven by his strong convictions of what is good in America. He writes to preserve the vision of America as a land of hope and opportunity that he was taught in school. Despite coming of age entirely in the Bush administration, Nelligan shows the poise of an educated and commited progressive.

It’s not so much that you and I see two different Americas, or that we just have different perceptions of the same core American ideals. It’s that you fundamentally misunderstand America’s ideals. Every time you talk about freedom, or the future, or “the wisdom of the people,” I only have one question: what the hell are you trying to say?

…

You’re right in asserting that government can’t make us happy, just like it can’t tell women what they can and can’t talk to their doctors about, and can’t tell gays and lesbians what kind of love is moral. However, you are wrong in saying that government can’t cure the sick and insure their families; that it can’t educate our children and reform our adults; or that it can’t generate employment for those who need it and lift those who don’t have it out of poverty. Government has done all of those things for a very long time, and will continue to do them for even longer.

…

I have had to grow up in this country, the land Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, under George W. Bush. A man who demonizes being smart and educated as “elitist,” and who somehow manages to make being uninformed and unengaged into something honorable. I’m lucky enough now to have a President who does none of those things, and quite frankly I don’t want to turn back the clock.

Nelligan clearly recognizes Palin as what she is: a politican who would seek to turn back the clock on the progress of the 20th century by dividing Americans against each other. Palin’s path to political power is one that she has set to be laid out through outrage and anger, two things that have not tended to produce the best our nation has to offer. Hopefully Nelligan is right and Palin will continue to recede from public life. But for the sake of today’s youth, in case she is thinking otherwise, I hope this open letter finds it way to her so she can see how dramatically she stands in contrast to the hopes and dreams of America’s youth.

MLN Interview with Senator Dodd

Senator Dodd speaks to the MyLeftNutmeg community about his current health issues, reforming healthcare, and the importance of having good coverage and regular checkups. The video was shot by Connecticut Man1, a disabled vetern who writes his own blog on CT politics, as well as regularly contributes on MLN. He talks with Dodd about the possibility of a single payer healthcare system. Dodd points out that he has to deal with the realities of the Senate and getting a public option through is going to be hard enough. He prioritizes getting reform done now over holding out for single payer. Dodd recognizes that this healthcare legislation isn’t going to be the end of the debate on healthcare reform. He closes with the promise that “more will happen in years to come.”

Pushing Back on Rightwing Lies

One of the problems we’ve face in the healthcare fight is the relative silence from the White House regarding what the positive output of Congress on reform legislation should be. While there can be a thorough discussion of the merits and flaws in this silence on positive legislation, there shouldn’t need to be any dispute that the administration would be best served by responding to smears of President Obama and the policies he is pushing (or not pushing).

The video above is an example of good work by the White House to rebut smears that the rightwing has used to create a sense of fear in their rabid base. Linda Douglass, who leads WH communications on healthcare, responds to the false accusations that President Obama is seeking to abolish private health insurance and is pushing for legislation that would prevent individuals from choosing their own doctors. Obviously both are false and Douglass does a good job of going point by point to defend Obama. What is even more effective is the video features cuts of President Obama himself stating clearly what he thinks reform should and should not do. Not surprisingly, the rightwing doesn’t have much legs to stand on when they are left dealing with facts and not fantasies.

McCain Campaign: Not Getting Women or Palin

Today’s Washington Post piece by Dan Balz and Haynes Johnson on the McCain campaigns machinations regarding their vice presidential pick really confirms what many Democrats and political observers thought: the McCain campaign had zero understanding or respect for how women make their decisions of who to vote for. Balz and Johnson report that the McCain campaign believed Palin would help McCain win the vote of former Hillary Clinton supporters and women more broadly because Palin was a woman.

As McCain approached his convention, his advisers saw the challenges as overwhelming — and contradictory. First, he needed to distance himself decisively from the president. Second, he needed to cut into Obama’s advantage among female voters. Despite the bitterness of the primaries and some of the mutinous talk among Hillary Rodham Clinton’s most vocal holdouts, the polls showed Obama consolidating most of the Clinton vote. By midsummer, this had become an acute problem for McCain.

Is it any shock that picking an unqualified governor from a tiny state with less than a term of service failed to draw women to support McCain for president? Picking Palin was a cynical ploy, bread out of a fundamental lack of respect for America’s women. I mean, seriously…did these same McCain staff also worry that Obama’s pick of Biden would cost McCain male votes because, hell, men vote for men?

The arrogance and stupidity of the McCain campaign is only born out further by the fact that they only gave themselves “12 hours to compelte the vetting process, take a face-to-face measure of their leading candidate, decide whether McCain and Palin had the chemistry to coexist as a ticket, and make a judgment about whether she was ready for the rigors of a national campaign.” I wouldn’t buy a car or a house or pick a school for my kids with such little research, but the McCain campaign thought that sufficient to pick the person who would be second in line to the presidency.

The story goes on to report that while Palin was deemed legally suitable for candidacy (something which I or most any other Alaskan political blogger could have told you was untrue), she never received adequate evaluation of the political risks she carried. They really only looked at her incorrectly perceived upside. It’s not new information, but McCain himself made the decision to pick Palin after only an hour long meeting with her.  In the end, this fact and the clear lack of detailed vetting that emerged during the course of the campaign, likely sorely cost him. That it was driven by an underlying desperation to shake things up and reclaim women voters seems to have produced an even less strategic, more risk-prone John McCain than we knew throughout the campaign. It’s no wonder that the end result was a crushing defeat, as Americans rejected both McCain and Palin.

Balz and Johnson reveal other intriguing insights in the McCain vice presidential selection process, notably how seriously Joe Lieberman was considered for the spot. I wonder what sort of “stunned” Holy Joe was when McCain told his pal that he’d picked a no-name from Alaska over him. If there’s anyone more self-righteous and egotistical than Sarah Palin, it’s Joe Lieberman and I can’t imagine he swallowed this bitter pill easily. Not that I feel bad for the man or anything…

Educating on Employee Free Choice, Part 36

Paul Begala has an incredibly powerful and persuasive op-ed in Politico today making the case for the Employee Free Choice Act. After introducing nightmare hypothetical scenarios of workers getting fired for trying to organize, Begala pulls back the curtain and reveals the stories are about real workers who were fighting for better jobs.

All of these stories are absolutely true. The stories of Trish Miechur, the CNA, and Corey Kresse, the metalworker, are replicated in boardrooms and factories across America. The story of Ken Lewis, Bank of America’s CEO? Well, that’s a familiar one, too. So here’s the question: Why are their experiences so different? Whom do we want our economic policies to benefit?

For eight years under the GOP, economic policy gave CEOs such as Ken Lewis the gold mine, while giving hardworking, middle-class Americans such as Trish and Corey the shaft. President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were elected to change that, and protecting employees from corporate abuses is part of the change we need. That’s what the Employee Free Choice Act will do.

Corporate lobbyists say the phrase “Employee Free Choice Act” as though it were a curse. But for Trish and Corey, it’s a blessing. The point of the Employee Free Choice Act is to say that we’ve had enough of an economy that works for Ken Lewis — and Bernie Madoff, for that matter. We want an economy that works for Trish Miechur and Corey Kresse.

The Employee Free Choice Act gives workers an opportunity to bargain with their employers for better job security, wages and health care at a time of astounding corporate greed. The legislation has three main parts: 1) It says that when a majority of workers want to form a union, a real path is provided for them to do so — a path chosen by workers, not corporate special interests; 2) it penalizes employers who try to fire or harass workers for attempting to form a union; and 3) it says that once workers have voted for a union, employers have to come to agreement with workers on a contract. Simple stuff, right?

So why are corporate interests squealing like a pig stuck under a gate? Maybe because they’re the only ones who prospered under the Bush-Lewis-Madoff policies.

As of now, it’s unclear when the Employee Free Choice Act will be given a vote in Congress. Recent press stories, based largely around anonymous comments from Democratic aides, has suggested that it is unlikely the bill will get a vote any time soon and especially not prior to the completion of healthcare reform. But legislative delays don’t diminish the moral and economic imperative for sweeping labor reform and as a result, we must continue to call on Congress to pass the Employee Free Choice Act with majority sign-up.   As Begala notes, this popular piece of legislation will get America’s economy moving again, so we have no time to lose.