Men of Mendacity

I was brought up with the idea that if you can't say anything nice you should say nothing at all. Admittedly, I don't always achieve that, especially during election season, but I certainly make the effort. With that in mind I'd like to take a moment to praise the loudest of the talking heads who ally themselves with the political entity that once deserved to call itself the Grand Old Party.

On the one hand, they expound about all the things they and/or the candidate(s) they support will do to make America "great again". On the other, without missing a step, they dismiss the incumbent President as someone who doesn't believe in the greatness of America. It takes a lot of mental pliability and/or mendacity to express those conflicting ideas with the level of conviction they muster. For that, if nothing else, they clearly deserve our admiration.

Regarding the "nothing else", what can I say? Last I checked, for all its flaws, America is still pretty great. If the standard bearers of the Republican party don't share that view, perhaps they should look inside themselves for the source of the problem rather than throwing rhetorical stones at the current President.

Plunging the Political Toilet Bowl

Political advertising is boring. No matter who the candidate is or what the issue, today's ads have nothing more to offer than shouting with a whisper that the other side sucks. Perhaps that was good enough for the political campaigns of the olden days, but the complex post-modern world in which we live cries out for something more.

My own modest proposal is to move the discourse from "the other side sucks" to "the other side sucks though not as bad as some people think." I propose that all political broadcast advertising be required to include at least one positive fact of the opposition's choice. For example, the President's team could require that ads criticizing the disposition of federal money from the 2009 Recovery Act include the fact that a third of that spending was in the form of tax-cuts for both individuals and corporations (which some would say are people too). On the flip side, those in charge of the Romney campaign could dictate that ads slamming the former governor's Swiss bank accounts and offshore holdings in the Cayman Islands note that Mr. Romney is a devoted family man.

Obviously, such a rule would be virtually impossible to administer. The federal government (i.e. The FCC) couldn't possibly do so because of the First Amendment issues, and there's really no other entity with sufficient scope. This kind of shift towards balance and respect for one's opponent would have to happen from the ground up with the candidates and their teams (not to mention their PACs). In a political climate whose escalation of rhetoric makes the US-Soviet arms race look tame, that seems about as likely as Superman eating a Kryptonite sandwich.

The Declaration of Hypocrisy: Mitt Romney vs. The Constitution

You'll never hear me call Mitt Romney a hypocrite when it comes to political issues. To be a hypocrite, you have to believe in something. Aside from his faith, which I have no doubt is quite sincere, the former governor's only conviction seems to be saying whatever it takes to get himself elected.

The trait shows through most clearly when Candidate Romney talks about the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (i.e. Obamacare to its detractors), which puts him in the uncomfortable position of explaining the health-care law that Governor Romney enacted in Massachusetts. It’s not so much his attempts to split hairs about why the law was appropriate on a state level but not on a federal level but rather his claims about how he'd deal with the law if elected president.

Romney has promised that one of his first acts as president will be to issue waivers for all 50 states that he pretends will put the law's effects on hold while he and (the presumably GOP controlled) congress repeal it. To his credit, and I’m sure many peoples’ surprise, Romney has been consistent on this point throughout the campaign. What is not a surprise is that the promise is as meaningless as it is contemptuous of the values he professes to hold.

Where the promise is meaningless is the fact that these so-called “state innovation waivers” require the states to meet very specific requirements which (with the possible exception of Massachusetts) they may or may not be ready for when January 2013 rolls around. That’s without factoring in that in the law’s current form the waivers don’t apply until 2017. Even if a bipartisan amendment supported by President Obama (i.e. the man who’s willing to get his hands dirty and work with people to get something good done) takes effect, the waivers would still be deferred until 2014. In short, whether the election has a good outcome or Romney gets elected, the next presidential term starts some months before the much feted waivers could take effect.

That bit of mendacity aside, the way Romney talks about the process is even more telling about his lack of credibility. With one breath, he boasts about how he “would respect the different branches of government if [he was] fortunate enough to become president." He then “[reserves] the right as president to put in place executive orders”, specifically pointing to his stated intention of using that power to put the health-care reform law on hold.

Whether the Affordable Care Act was passed with bipartisan support or strictly along party lines is irrelevant. For all its flaws, it was a legitimately enacted law, passed by both houses of Congress. A president who truly respects “the different branches of government” should think twice before undercutting their authority. Voters who want a president who truly respects the US Constitution and the separation of powers inherent in that document should think twice about voting for Mitt Romney.

Political Damnation

Political life is perhaps the ultimate example of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". Any elected official who's accomplished enough to run for higher office probably had to make compromises to get to that point. On the other end of the spectrum, those who haven't accomplished much run the risk of being defined by others because they've done so little to define themselves. You don't have to look any further than the two current GOP presidential front-runners to see this principle in action.

Though certain portions of his resume are causing him political grief, there's no doubt that Mitt Romney has accomplished a lot in his public life. How one feels about those accomplishments will almost certainly reflect their political leanings. This is demonstrated most obviously by the ongoing debate about how much the health-care law Romney signed into law as the governor of Massachusetts resembles the national law signed by President Obama.

Within conservative circles (i.e. the so-called base of the Republican party), the Massachusetts law and its mandate that nearly all citizens maintain a certain level of health insurance coverage is a mammoth affront to conservative principles that no amount of equivocating by the former governor will address. Consequently, Romney is being forced to run away from one of the key things that shows his worthiness for the presidency and in the process, displaying a lack of conviction that marks him as decidedly unworthy of the office.

Rick Santorum, on the other hand, is as stark a contrast to Mitt Romney as you'll find for another candidate nominally in the same political party. Though the former US Senator's record may be light on concrete accomplishments, no one could plausibly suggest that he lacks conviction or the initiative to speak his mind. This is never more true than when it comes to expressing the most alarming of social views. While other GOP candidates, especially Romney, have faced criticism for shifting views on various social and moral issues, you always know where Santorum stands. This combination of a relatively thin resume and views that felt outdated decades ago, let alone today, has made him something of an easy target for anyone to his political left (i.e. anyone more moderate than Mike Huckabee).

At the most extreme, in terms of both political leaning and poor taste, is the infamous "Google problem". It's telling that, despite the large-scale mainstream coverage of his campaign, Santorum still can't disassociate himself from the scatological use of his name that his insensitive comments about homosexuality provoked. Even putting the "Google problem" aside, there are currently as many top search results about him cursing at a New York Times reporter as there are about his policies and achievements. You don't have to go too much further down the list to read about his time in congress and connection to the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere".

What's left is a candidate who brings to mind the story of how Oliver Wendell Holmes characterized one of the Roosevelts (sources differ on whether it was TR or FDR) having a second-class intellect but a first-rate temperament. Even his fiercest supporters would be hard-pressed to claim that he rise above (or even reaches) second-class in either field. In short, he's Rick Perry with better debate skills and is perhaps the first plausible presidential candidate in the nuclear era who you could believe would press the red button to fulfill a prophecy. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Common Law Iceberg

The claims of so-called "birthers" questioning President Obama's citizenship status and by extension his eligibility for office are among the cockroaches of American politics. However repetitive and discredited the claims are, no court decision nor release of documents can seem to kill them. Against that backdrop, you have to give Pennsylvania resident Thomas Barchfeld credit for finding a somewhat novel approach to trying to keep the President off the ballot in that state, even if it is nonsense.

Instead of claiming that President Obama wasn't born in the United States, Barchfeld asserts that the President isn't a "natural born citizen" because only one of his parents was an American citizen. The "basis" for this is a passage from the Supreme Court's written opinion in an 1874 case (Minor v Happersett) about voting rights for women. While giving historical context about how citizenship and the rights of citizens have been determined in accordance with the US Constitution, the court noted that in the absence of a specific definition for the term "natural born citizen" common law practice prevails. The justices then discussed some of the ways in which citizenship status has been defined under common law and acknowledged questions that had arisen about how foreign citizenship of one or both parents might impact someone's status as a "natural born citizen".

At first glance, and as reported in many outlets without any apparent attempt at fact-checking, it comes across as a credible claim. What Barchfeld (and many of those reporting his efforts) overlooks is that the legal and historical background for the 1874 case is just that, background. The case itself and the court's decision in the matter is not about how citizenship status is determined but rather whether citizenship automatically conveys voting rights under the Constitution (as it stood in the late 19th century, at least). In fact, the members of the court specifically state in the decision that they are not making any specific ruling on the question of who qualifies as "a natural born citizen", deferring again to common law, making this contemporary claim not just foolish but also ill-informed.

Ill-informed though Barchfeld may be, his words certainly show him to be passionate about this cause. "I am saddened that it seems very possible that the largest hoax in American history has been perpetrated on the people of America, undoubtedly this is just the tip of the iceberg in a very sordid tale I am just a citizen of this State, and I only needed mere hours to find this information which is readily available."

At first, I found myself wondering how much more he could have achieved if he'd spent just a few more minutes reading the next few, equally available sentences in the court decision and realized that he had no case. On reflection, though, it might be better to have him engaged in an effort like this where he can't do any real harm.

Move On?

There's a video making the rounds on the web about the Occupy Wall Street protests via MoveOn.org. Billed as the "The Most Powerful Occupy Wall Street Clip You Will See This Month", despite siding with the protesters, I'm very conflicted about the video. 

On the one hand, it is indeed a powerful piece of film-making, skillfully edited to juxtapose the public statements of President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton about the political protests in Libya and Syria with footage of the NYPD altercations with the Occupy Wall Street protesters in a way that implies hypocrisy on their part. On the other, for all the skill that went into it, it's ultimately little more than a piece of simplistic and narrow-minded propaganda. Moreover, its assertion that Obama's and Clinton's remarks on the revolutions in the Middle East represent hypocrisy because they haven't voiced similar thoughts on the "Occupy" protests is ridiculous if you know anything about our system of government.

First off, Secretary Clinton's role as Secretary of State limits her remit to international affairs. Secondly, as an official of the federal government, President Obama obviously doesn't have jurisdiction over the NYPD or any other locality's police. And if he did try to exert such control, he'd be vilified for acting in a dictatorial manner. Beyond that, in terms of policy, I think the tax elements of the jobs bill suggest that he's at least on the same chapter, if perhaps not on the same page, as the protesters, which makes picking on him seem a bit small-minded.

As far as the arrests of those protesters, any honest assessment leads to the conclusion that we really have no idea what led up to those arrests. The filmmakers present the protesters' assertions (e.g. one saying she hadn't been read her rights) completely at face value, but between the shaky camera work and the highly selective editing, we have no idea if the police were being high-handed or acting appropriately. Another element not reflected in the film, as it seeks to compare the protests in the Middle East to those here in America, is the fact that the protesters on Wall Street will most likely be released on their own recognizance after a brief hearing, while any protesters arrested in Syria will probably be tortured and/or killed. 

Obviously a piece of propaganda has no obligation to fairly represent both sides of the issue, but the aggressiveness with which it ignores so many basic realities feels wrong - all the more so because I agree with their cause. It's just a shame that the only way people seem to be able to fight for their causes these days is to fight dirty.

The Nuge vs. Hussein B

Anyone who's been to a Ted Nugent concert (or read the opinion page of The Washington Times) in recent years has doubtless heard the rock icon make numerous disparaging remarks about President Obama. What most people don't realize is that this animosity actually has relatively little to do with public policy decisions. It's all about a song and a hard line drawn where compromise would have benefited all.

For many years "the Nuge" has wanted congressional recognition for his classic Wang Dang Sweet Poontang (possibly to replace The Star Spangled Banner as the national anthem - accounts vary widely). He knew he get no help from Michigan's senators Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin, who he often referred to as "those [expletive deleted]", but when Barack Obama was elected to represent the neighboring state of Illinois in the US Senate he finally had hope.

This was not false hope, as Obama was known to be a big fan of the "Motor City Madman", but what he hadn't reckoned with was how much Michelle Obama disliked that particular song. In any case, during a meeting between the two men harsh words were exchanged when the future President suggested the equally classic Cat Scratch Fever as an alternative. Here again, accounts vary but most independent sources seem to agree that Nugent was pushing his luck with Hussein B (to use the future President's street handle) who was fully capable with putting a crossbow bolt up Nugent's "damn yankee".

Since then, the war of words has been unending, albeit one-sided as President Obama has chosen to take the high road. This schism between two men who each in their own way exemplify American individuality is a true American tragedy, all the more so because it could have been avoided if "the Nuge" had simply been willing to consider Cat Scratch Fever instead.

I am, of course, kidding about all of this.

A Blessed Event?

Were he alive today, Mark Twain might say of our media culture that it consists of "lies, damn lies and Fox News". With that in mind, it will be interesting to see what Fox News and similar "news" outlets will be saying in the weeks ahead about the release of President Obama's birth certificate from Hawaii earlier today (link to story on yahoo.com). Personally, I don't believe for a second that this will convince hard-core "birthers", including Donald Trump, that the issue is settled. The best we can hope for is that this release of records will move the issue to the furthest fringes of the debate and banish whatever little vestige of credibility their argument ever had. Sadly, we live in a world where the oft-discredited Jerome Corsi's yet-to-be-released book on the subject Where's the Birth Certificate is still among the top selling items on Amazon, so maybe even that modest hope is a bit too much. Even being a pragmatic idealist is hard work these days.

Trumped Up Nonsense

When even Karl Rove has decided the GOP should drop something as a method of attacking President Obama, that seems a pretty good barometer that something has run its course. The latest case in point is the infamous (and ridiculous) "birther" accusations implying that Barack Obama's presidency is illegitimate based on him allegedly having been born in Kenya (or heaven knows where else). Of course, potential 2012 candidate Donald Trump won't be told anything by anyone and so he continues to pander to the extreme right by demanding that the President produce his birth certificate.

What's so striking about Trump's approach is not that he's chosen an issue that is so clearly played out politically, it's that he actually seems to think it will endear him to the far right and by extension help him with primary voters. Those voters have seen this movie before, when it was called Rudolph Giuliani, and decided they didn't care for it enough to want to see it for four years. Like Trump, Giuliani offered a combination of strong name recognition and mixed record on conservative social issues. He couldn't even manage a second-place finish in any of the GOP primaries, let alone win one of them.

To that stew, Trump adds the special ingredient of having donated to numerous Democratic candidates over the years (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2011/02/donald-trumps-donations-to-democrats.html). Were this limited to New York politicians, like Senator Charles Rangel and Charles Schumer, that might be somewhat excusable. When that list includes current Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, then-Senator Joe Biden and the late Senator Edward Kennedy, it's hard to imagine the same kind of partisan voters who traditionally vote in primaries forgiving that sort of aisle-crossing and embracing "The Donald".

Some writers have suggested that Trump's behavior may be some sort of publicity stunt related to the current season of Celebrity Apprentice. Even if that's true, though, it really doesn't make it any better. He's still poisoning the political dialogue with a non-issue that's beyond irrelevant. He should be ashamed, but if there's one thing his public life has demonstrated Trump has none.