July 25, 2019--Mueller's "Labored Performance"

I'm still under the weather so this will be brief.

That is how the New York Times referred to Mueller's appearance before committees of the House of Representatives--"labored"--and so his testimony included little for Democrats to pick over.

There was virtually nothing new that could be used in a march toward impeachment.

It was sad to see--the great man reduced in stature--but perhaps ultimately good political for progressives.

Good in that moving to impeach Trump much less actually impeaching him--I'm with Nancy Pelosi about this--is significantly bad for the Democrats' long-range agenda: ridding us of Trump.

The vast majority of Americans, including Democrats, do not want to see Trump impeached. Not that they want him to continue in office but they realize it would paralyze the government such as it is and ultimately lead to nothing. The Dems will tear themselves apart (as are the still 20 seeking the nomination) and it would only give Trump the opportunity to operatically claim he is being persecuted because of his policies.

For months it will be all Trump all the time.

So I am thinking that Mueller's labored testimony is a blessing in disguise.

Or is this thinking the result of my cold that never seems to want to go away?

June 10, 2019--No Need to Vote

I've been hearing from friends who live in blue states that they're not planning to vote next year.

"You must be kidding," I've been saying. "You're lifelong liberals, Democrats, you can't abide Trump, and yet you plan to sit on your hands in November? The 2020 vote may turn out to be our last chance to rid ourselves of him. I'm not sure I want to be involved with you if this is your plan."

"Before you cut me off," one said, "I live in deep-blue Massachusetts. There we can already chalk up the Electoral votes for whoever the Democrats nominate."

"Or California where I live," another said. "Last time around it gave Hillary more than a four-million vote plurality. So what does my vote mean?"

"Then there's New York," one of my oldest friends said, "My vote won't count there either. The Democrat always wins at least 60 percent of the vote."

"I can't believe I'm hearing this," I said and was tempted to change the subject so we could remain friends.

"What's the counter argument?" my California friend asked, "So Biden or the nominee wins by 'only' three-and-a-half million popular votes. But still he cleans up in the Electoral College."

"You're right that what happens with the Electoral votes will determine who becomes president but the national vote also counts in some big ways."

"Enlighten me."

"First of all the potential size of the Democratic plurality will contribute to repudiating Trump. He won't be able to claim that there's fraud if the vote against him adds up to many millions. No matter what states the votes come from. As we know he's all about size."

"Fair point."

"Then there are the potential political consequences. With a big plurality the winner's coat tails will be longer and maybe more Democrats will be elected to Congress. This then could contribute to what legislation gets enacted and, perhaps most important, who can get confirmed to the Supreme Court. In other words, the size of the vote could enable the winner to claim a mandate. Pressure by the electorate to push Congress to protect the environment, women's rights, a sensible approach to foreign affairs. All sorts of things you support that have been gutted by Trump and his administration."

In general, after these conversations pretty much everyone says they will rouse themselves vote to help run up the numbers.

We'll see. 

May 3, 2019--Contempt For Congress

Because he refused to turn up for a hearing Thursday before the House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Barr will for certain be subpoenaed to appear and if he still refuses to do so will likely be cited for contempt of Congress. 

What this ultimately means, how it will play out is uncertain.

Following Trump's lead, the president's latest flunky (how he attracts a stream of them is unfathomable), Barr, will not be fined nor tried in court, nor will he be sent to jail.

The way these matters are traditionally worked out is by the various parties making a deal. I'll agree to appear if you, the committee, agree to certain ground rules such as which lines of questions are permitted and which others will be overlooked. And apparently in the current case, who will do the questioning.

Deals are ultimately necessary because there is nothing in the Constitution that requires anyone to appear before Congress. Including members of the country's administration (read the president his staff, and his appointees). And there are no real consequences for not participating. The worst that happens is that those who refuse to cooperate go down in history as having been held in contempt by Congress.

Two things--

In spite of all the claims that Congress has an "oversight" role, that Congress is a coequal part of the government--with the federal courts and the administration being the other two branches-- there is also nothing in the Constitution about oversight nor is there anything about coequalness. The way the government functions in this regard is codified in various rules and precedents. Not in the Constitution.

If this sounds incorrect you can check me by reading the first three Articles of the Constitution. 

Someone like Trump or Barr, both of whom have contempt for Congress, being cited by Congress for contempt would likely be viewed as having earned a badge of honor. Therefore, such citings have little persuasive power.

With Congress having approval ratings in the low teens and more than half the population not supporting impeachment (the one intra-governmental constitutional power the Congress does in fact have), Trump and his enablers are not concerned about the public demanding they be brought to justice.

Things have come to this.

When reviewing Barr's equivocating and lying to Congress, political analysts have been worrying about how this is contributing to the further erosion of our democracy, noting that as a result we are experiencing a "constitutional crisis."

One thing overlooked by most is that though we may very well be facing a crisis it is not strictly speaking constitutional.

Recall, our Founders did not favor democracy. In fact, they worried that a democratic government, government of and by the people, would quickly deteriorate to anarchy as the unwashed would dominate and bring us down. And so they adopted a representative republic with whatever votes that were allowed granted only to property owners. And of course, white people.

Current day conservatives, including Barr do not believe in the rights of "ordinary" people. Voter suppression legislation, for example, is not just about helping Republicans control the government and political process but is also to limit the voting power of "the people," the same kinds of people Jefferson and Madison did not want to grant voting rights to.

These are some of the powerful forces and traditions we are confronting. On an intuitive level Trump has figured out much of this. To prevail we have to be even smarter.

March 12, 2019--The Best No-Show Jobs in America

How does this sound to you?

The job pays $174K a year. Your work schedule is three days a week, 25-30 weeks a year. Benefits are generous. Heath care insurance and a version of a 401(k) is paid for by your employer, and there are healthcare plans you can opt for that require almost no copays. Retirement opportunities are equally generous. You can collect your pension (up to 80% of your salary) at age 50 after just 20 years on the job.

Best of all you work autonomously since you do not have a supervisor. Depending on your job title your work is reviewed either every two or six years.

Actually, best, it's up to you if you want to show up for work at all.

By now you know I am talking about the working conditions of members of Congress.

There is no other salaried job in or out of government that is as generous. In spite of our Founders' vision that our representatives would contribute their time for a year or two as semi-volunteers and that members of Congress should not view serving in the House or Senate as one's primary work, we have evolved to quite the opposite.

The drive for power and the more than generous working conditions and compensation have transformed doing one's civic duty into well-paid careers. A version of the same is true for some governors and mayors.

It is not unusual for members of the House or Senate to seek reelection a dozen or more times and serve for 20, 30 or more years. The current longest-serving member of the House of Representatives is Don Young, R-Al, who has been in office 46 years. And in the Senate, the most senior member is Patrick Leahy, D-Vt, who has represented Vermont for 44 years. 

Among Democrats currently seeking the 2020 presidential nomination, six are senators, one is a member of the House, another is a sitting mayor, and thus far there is one governor.

All have basically taken self-assigned taxpayer-paid leaves of absence to enable them to campaign full time. In Bernie Sanders' case, while remaining on the government payroll, he has been running for the nomination full time for more than five years. 

He and the others show up in Congress only when there is a major piece of legislation to vote on that they see to be in their own best interest. Otherwise they are to be found in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, the first three states to hold either caucuses or primary elections. They also spend a lot of time hat in hand in New York or LA.

I know, where do we sign up. 

April 13, 2018--Post-Privacy

More than usual people are concerned about privacy. This the result of the news that Facebook did not prevent the sharing of very personal information about 87 million of us. In fact, they sold it to Cambridge Analytica, which, in turn may or may not have used that data in shady ways to support Donald Trump's run for the presidency.

What did people addicted to Facebook (me included) think they were doing with all the data about our intimate selves we so casually handed over to them? 

Facebook makes billions every month but doesn't charge users to use their "platform." What was Facebook's business model that yielded so much money? If we had paused for a minute to think about how Instagram's and Google's and Snapchat's and YouTube's and Twitter's business models make a fortune but do not charge users we would have realized they made their money by selling us out to marketers and political consultants. 

So all the outrage directed toward Facebook sounds a little self-serving and inauthentic. My bet is that hardly anyone will as a result stop using Facebook or the others.

And, it seems to me, that very few people care profoundly about this. I want my Facebook; I don't want to pay to use it; and I don't care very much, perhaps not at all, about losing my privacy.

After all, don't the social network platforms depend upon us eagerly wanting to surrender our privacy? Aren't they ultimately narcissistic-enabling vehicles for us to let it all, or much of it, hang out for "friends" and friends of friends and friends of friends' friends? Isn't the dream of much of this to have one's postings widely shared, go viral? How else can that happen unless we put it all out there to be passed around?

Years ago I had early glimpses of how people were moving to sacrifice privacy for the sake of convenience and expediency. Though at the time I really didn't get it.

About two decades ago I was online at Citibank (not on-line) waiting to deposit a check. This in the day before there were ATMs. Ahead of me were two women who were talking at full volume. One was worried about her daughter, "I'm afraid she's becoming addicted to cocaine," she said loud enough for everyone on line to hear. "I don't know what to do with her. I can't afford to pay for a recovery program. I suppose I just have to hope for the best."  

Her friend put an arm around her and, changing the subject, began to talk, equally audibly, about her boyfriend, "He punched me the other day. We were having an argument and he got violent. Slapped my face hard enough that I think he loosened a couple of my molars." She opened her mouth wide and showed her friend the two teeth. Her friend leaned closer to examine her teeth.

Thankfully, they soon got to the head of the line and were summoned by one of the tellers. The memory is still vivid for me.

A few years later, walking home on Broadway, there was a young woman who appeared to be talking to herself in a very loud voice. Another crazy person, I thought. So young to be talking to herself, I thought. But as I moved quickly to pass her, I realized she was speaking to someone on her cell phone, talking into the wire attached to the phone on which there was a small microphone. Again, without needing to strain to pay attention I could hear every word she said. They were talking about meeting that evening at a local restaurant. All very benign, but evidence that the culture was shifting. I realized we would soon have no need for the phone booths with accordion doors that were still common on urban streets.

Some time after that I was in Washington for a meeting with Alaska Senator Ted ("Uncle Ted") Stevens. He was the chair of the all-powerful Appropriations Committee and I was, I confess, seeking his support for a $20.0 million earmark for a promising public school reform project that, to lubricate the process of seeking his help, we were more than willing to bring to his state.

He was about to be term-limited out of the chairmanship so the timing was urgent. 

We spoke about the project (which he later arranged to be funded) and then he told me that as a consolation for losing the Appropriations chair, he was to become the chair of the Senate Commerce Committee. He wasn't, to tell the truth, happy about this. It was a much less powerful position.

"One thing I'm concerned about," he said, "is the responsibility for protecting internet security. Really, privacy. And to be honest with you, I'm 82 years old, and don't know anything about the internet or, for the matter, computers."

"So, what are you going to do?" I asked.

"I'll tell you what I already did," he said, smiling, "I asked my youngest staffers to do a little looking around and see what they could learn about me on the internet. You know, when and where I was born, where I live, who I'm married to. Things of that sort. I told them to get back to me in a week or so and they said no problem."

"I think I know where this is going," I said.

"Well, later in the day, the same day, they appeared in my doorway holding stacks and stakes of paper. 'What's all that?' I asked them. They told me it was what they had already come up with on the internet. You wouldn't believe what they found in just a few hours."

"I would," I whispered. He was on a roll and I didn't want to interrupt him.

"You know I have six kids. Well, not only did they find out everything about Cathy-Ann and me but also about them. Where they were born, how old they are, where they went to school, what they studied, and what they did after college. Also, where they live, and if they owned a house how much they paid for it. They even knew about their student loans and any mortgages on their properties."

He shrugged his shoulders, "And that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's enough to say that everything's out there to be found by anyone who knows how to do that. And my staffers told me how easy that is. From what they explained to me I understood why it only took a couple of hours to gather all that information."

"This is terrible," I said, "And so as the about-to-be chair of the Commerce Committee what are you thinking about doing?"

He stared off into space, "Probably nothing."

"Nothing?" I was incredulous. Remember, it was years ago. For most of us knowing about the power of the internet was rather new.

"It's too late," he said, "No one in Congress cares anything about this. They think it's good for business. No one gives a rat's ass about privacy. As I said, it's all over."

This was 2005 and from an 82-year-old senator from Alaska who never turned on a computer. He was still able to see the future.

"It's over. It's all over," he said as I thanked him and turned to leave.

Senater (Uncle Ted) Stevens

April 7, 2017--Congressional Dye Job

There was something familiar looking about Adam Schiff yesterday morning during his appearance on Morning Joe.

As the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee he's in high demand these days by the media since the Intel Committee is one of two congressional committees investigating the Trump administration's various Russian involvements.

Though their work is supposed to be confidential, since national security may be at stake, he and his fellow committee members, especially the chairman, Devin Nunes have not been shy about appearing on TV and in some cases inappropriately even thinking out loud that they wouldn't be "surprised" if at the end of the day some people who are apparently involved in dealing less than legitimately with Putin and his people will wind up in jail.

2020 presidential candidate  and committee member Joaquin Castro said as much earlier this week. He got lots of headlines for that as did a number of other Democrats who chimed in. Half the Dems on the committees it seems are also thinking about running for president in four years.

I peered intently at Schiff to see what might have triggered my curiosity about the way he looked. Was it that he reminded me of my Uncle Ben or Mr. Gatti, my 5th grade teacher?

I tried squinting to see if would help.

Then there was the first of the morning's breaking news--under pressure to step aside because of his behaving as a Trump apologist, eager to do his bidding, rather than a more-or-less impartial investigator, Nunes "temporarily"suspending his Russian Connection involvement.

Nunes' picture popped up on the screen.

"That's it!" I said to Rona, who had no idea why I was so excited. "They have the same hair!"

"The same what?"

"Hair. Schiff and Nunes. Look." I pointed at the TV, "Not the same hair but the same color. I mean the same dye job. Isn't that amazing?"

"I'm beginning to be concerned about you," Rona said. "Can we watch something fluffy? I've already had my daily fill of this and I'm worried about you. You're in danger of going off the deep end over Trump and his people. Is there a MASH or Seinfeld rerun to distract us?"

"I think I know why they have the same hair color," I said.

"You can tell me on one condition."

"What's that?"

"That after you do we watch an episode of Married With Children. I hate that show but it always gives you a few laughs, which you desperately need. In fact, the next time you go to see Dr. Heller I want you to talk with him about this."

"This? You mean their hair?"

"No, your obsession with everything having to do with Trump. Maybe there's some medication he can prescribe."

Ignoring that, I asked, "Is this just a coincidence? The both of them having the same color dye? What are the odds of that?

"I wouldn't know and I don't care."

"I don't care but I'm sure I know."

"Lord help me."

"They go to the same barber. And I bet it's the House barber."

"The House barber? The House of Representatives has a barber?"

"More than that. A barber shop and a hair salon for female members. I saw them one time when a congressman I was working with walked me around the Capital and showed me that and their gym and swimming pool and sauna and of course the cafeteria and restaurant. Where things are either free or very low cost."

"So your theory is that Nunes and Schiff go to that barber rather than ones in the districts?"

"Exactly. I can hear them telling the barber 'Give me a Nunes or a Schiff.'"

"Like people used to ask for an Elvis or Farrah." Rona was getting into it.

"I wonder what else our representatives are getting as perks. I know they get a minimum of $174,000 in salary and $250,000 a year for office and travel expenses which means that they effectively fly for free."

"And don't forget the free parking at Reagan Airport. Right by the terminals."

"And pensions that are way beyond what ordinary employees or executives get. I looked that up the other day. After 20 years in office they get $59,000 a year. More than twice what they'd get or a typical retiree would get from Social Security."

"This is making me sick to my stomach," Rona said.

"Congress meets only part of the year and so members get 239 days a year off. They work on many of those days back home, but really."

"Can we change the channel?" Rona pleaded with me.

"Here's my favorite thing--they get platinum health care of course, much of the cost of which is subsidized by, you'll never guess, Obamacare. I'm sure when they repeal and replace it they won't be taking away that subsidy."

"Is it any wonder people who are struggling to get by are made crazy by this?"

"At least if Congress did its job. But one more thing," I said.

"As long as it's the last thing."

"I promise. But back to the hair business. Don't you think that if they didn't have their own hair place in the Capital they would benefit by going to barbershops in their home districts? Barber shops and beauty parlors are great places to stay in touch with constituents. Better than town hall meetings where everyone is screaming and yelling."

"Joaquin Castro was right--they need to be put in jail."

Mach 25, 2107--The System At Work

Many of my friends who have feared that Donald Trump is a crypto-fascist in the mold of Benito Mussolini, that he doesn't believe in representative democracy and plans to overturn our system, need to take another look at the power of the American political system to resist Strong Men and protect itself.

This resistance expresses itself mainly though the power of our vaunted system of political checks and balances.

Take today's defeat of the Trump-Ryan plan to repeal and replace Obamacare. The bill was among the meanest spirited to ever come before Congress with a real chance of being approved. It would have led to the illness and death of hundreds of thousands of Americans. It had the tincture of fascism about it.

But it never even came to a vote.

Forget for the moment the internecine war within the Republican Party that contributed to Trumpcare's defeat. That internal warfare is another illustration of the system working. As do the street demonstrations and dissent-filled town hall meetings.

We may have a totally unqualified and unstable person in the Oval offie, but as of today he and his powers are dramatically diminished and there is no chance that he will turn into an American Duce

Consider this progress and move on to other things to be concerned about and resist. Like tax cuts for the wealthy.

June 17, 2015--Schmoozing With Congress

Again on Sunday, Maureen Dowd (who my 107-year-old mother calls Maureen Shroud) in the New York Times castigated Barack Obama for his unwillingness to deal directly with Congress. To work them, schmooze with them. How he has disdain for them, remains aloof, and thus is unable to get even widely-supported legislation passed, including last week to give him and future presidents more flexibility in Asian trade policy.

She wrote--

The president descended from the mountain for half an hour on Thursday evening, materializing at Nationals Park to schmooze with Democrats and Republicans at the annual congressional baseball game.

It was the first time he had deigned to drop by, and the murmur went up, "Jeez. Now? Really?" 

Obama has always resented the idea that it mattered for him to charm and knead and whip and hug and horse-trade his way to legislative victories, to lubricate the levers of government with personal loyalty. But, once more, he learned the hard way, it matters.

I am reading James Patterson's Restless Giant: The United States from Watergate to Bush v. Gore, and a large section of it is devoted to Ronald Reagan and his presidency.

Reagan may not have been the sharpest tack but he was among the most effective presidents in getting his agenda enacted by Congress, even though during his eight years in office, for the most part, both houses were controlled by Democrats. Fiercely partisan ones at that. Tip O'Neill, for example, was Speaker of the House during Reagan's tenure and there was no stronger partisan than old Tip.

He disagreed with almost everything the president stood for, but made many deals with him when they met regularly at the White House after office hours, trading stories and sharing a bottle of fine Scotch.

No fan of Reagan, Patterson reports that during his first 100 days in office, even while recovering from a very serious assassination attempt, Reagan amazingly met 69 times with 467 members of Congress, in addition to lobbying many more on the phone.

No one yet has added up Obama's meetings with members of Congress, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that during his first six-and-a-half years as president he has had fewer than 69 meetings and met with and spoken personally with fewer than 100 members.

Patterson writes that--

Though Reagan rejected major changes in his [legislative] plans, his actions indicated . . .  that he was far from the inflexible ideologue that critics had described.

Yes, the tax cuts he enacted with bipartisan support added exponentially to the national debt, tripling between 1980 and 1989 from $914 billion to $2.7 trillion, in many ways he was a successful president--the economy improved and he proved adept at foreign policy, very much including getting along famously and doing serious business with Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev.

Clearly schmoozing works.

May 8, 2015--Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee--or Mike Huckleberry as my mother refers to him--this week announced to no one's surprise that he is again running for president.

There is room in the Republican clown car for him since he is literally a lot smaller than he was in 2008, the last time he ran, thanks to lap-band surgery and the pressure to look slim on TV during the years he had a talk show on Fox News. He has little chance of winning the nomination but should see a bounce in his lecture fees and at the minimum during the campaign be good for a few laughs.

In regard to that, he started off with a few zingers--

First, to differentiate himself from all other GOP candidates, while calling for cutting or eliminating almost everything else, he offered strong support for retaining Social Security and Medicare pretty much as they are. Chiding other Republicans--specifically those many no-shows in the Senate who, on the public payroll, are running for the presidency--Huckabee called for cuts in their own fat government pensions and health care benefits instead of those of more vulnerable citizens.

This was a smart move for him, considering his likely 65+ year-old base of supporters, and fits right in with the Populist passion to take regular swipes at anything having to do with government.

But beyond this, he is such a fiscal conservative (a GOP requirement) that he advocated the elimination of much of the rest of the federal government. Supporting the military--another imperative--aside. For that he wants to spend more and presumably use our troops more aggressively than he claims they are at present. Do I hear in Iran?

From his perspective I get eliminating the Department of Education--the federal role in education has for decades been a Republican whipping boy, with claims that it exists only to promulgate socialist, secular propaganda in our public schools. Of course, neither Huckabee nor any of the others tell us what they would do about various forms of student financial aid (the largest part of the DOE budget) that even Republican critics use to help them and their children pay for college.

OK so we'll figure out how to make that work. Probably through privatization--give those programs back to the banks. Who cares if it would cost billions more than at present. If the private sector is in charge, to conservatives by definition that's better than the government playing a role.

And of course, top of the list of federal agencies to be eliminated is the loathsome IRS. Even poor Rick Perry last time around was able to remember that was one to the three programs he would eliminate--he needed help with the other two. Perhaps soon he'll tell us which they are since he too is about to grab a seat in the clown car.

Without the IRS why would anyone feel compelled to pay taxes? Talk about America becoming just like Greece where hardly anyone does.

But, of course, that would be a good thing--no tax money means no federal government. Sure, Huckabee and his colleagues would have to figure out how to pay for the military and border security. Their two favorite federal programs.

Maybe we'll privatize the military. Turn it into a for-profit operation. For example, let Boeing or United Airlines run the Air Force, GM or Ford the Army, and Carnival Cruise Lines the Navy. Issue stocks and bonds to support it and peg dividends to how many wars we can drum up and  . . .

And then we could hire Blackwater to take over border security. Look how good a job they did in Iraq where the Bush administration had them provide security for American operatives. No matter a host of them were recently convicted of murdering Iraqi allies.

Do we want the CIA, FBI, NSA? If so, is it possible to privatize them? We could contract with Facebook and Google to do the electronic surveillance. For marketing purposes, by collecting big data about each of us, they are already doing a version of that.

Do we want an FDA to offer assurance that our medications work and are safe? Not if we have to spend tax money to do so. But since we do want to avoid the undue side effects of new medications (the current scary ones are enough) we could turn the FDA functions over to Pfizer and Novartis. They'd jump at the chance to fast track the approval of their own new products.

Our crumbling federal highways and bridges? Sell them to Abu Dhabi. They already have experience running the parking meter concession in Chicago so maybe we should ask them to repave our interstates.

The Government Printing Office and Mint? Turn them over to Citibank. In the early days of the United States banks offered their own currency so this would be a strict-constructionist way to manage our money 2015-style. And while we're at it, get rid of the Federal Reserve. With Citibank controlling the money supply, who needs them?

Federal Prisons? Many states have already privatized theirs so why not the U.S. government.

The airports? A perfect role for JetBlue.

The postal service? A no-brainer--FedEx is already handling a substantial portion of our packages and is venturing successfully into mail service. So let's turn the rest over to them.

And of course we should sell the national parks to Disney. That's an easy one. Grand Canyon Land. Yosemite World. Love it! Now if Disney would only add a water slide at Old Faithful and . . .

April 16, 2015: Germany, Japan, Cuba & Iran

They bombed Pearl Harbor and after we defeated them in World War II, with great loss of life and limb as American's invaded island after bloody island in the Pacific, after just few years of occupation, Japan became one of our closest allies.

They invaded and conquered most of Western Europe; exterminated more than 6.0 million Jews, homosexuals, and gypsies; and mercilessly bombed civilian populations in England and elsewhere. After we entered the war, they killed more than 300,000 U.S. soldiers. And yet, again, after the allies defeated them and after just a relatively few years of occupation, with our help Germany was rebuilt and became one of our closest allies.

As with Japan, this relationship endures.

So why is there such a big problem with Cuba and Iran?

We were versions of allies with both until 1959 when Fidel Castro seized power and quickly thereafter announced that Cuba was in fact a client state of our Cold War adversary, the Soviet Union. And, in Iran's case, we related well (perhaps too complicitously) until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution erupted and the new government, dominated by ayatollahs, captured and held hostage 66 American embassy workers.

Now, via his executive power, President Obama is moving rapidly to resume normal diplomatic relations with Cuba and there is evidence that Iran wants to make a deal with the West by agreeing to scale back its nuclear weapons program.

The former, normalized relations with Cuba, is long overdue and now all but certain to occur. The most significant resistance to such a deal is the demagogic posturing of presidential candidate Marco Rubio, whose parents were born in Cuba, and his pandering to the remnants of the Cuban-American community in the hope that they and other American Latinos will rally to support his ambitions.

There are also Cold-War-minded dead-enders who are still fighting the Soviets through its former proxy, Cuba.

Then of course there is the on-going resistance to anything Barack Obama wants to do, especially if it is potentially historic and would burnish his image as president.

Much more troubling is the widespread opposition among virtually all Republicans, and sadly many Democrats, who oppose the semblance of any deal with Iran, out of fear that they will be smitten politically by the Israeli lobby or yelled at by Benjamin Netanyahu.

If things were not to work out with Cuba, it would not be catastrophic. They are not strategic players and are no longer military allies of the Russians. No Soviet missiles with atomic warheads remain on the island and they are not in any way a threat to our security.

But unless the West is able to consummate a deal with Iran it is likely that we will be maneuvered into a war with them, siding with the Israelis and egged on by congressional hawks and passionate evangelical supporters of Israel. So this is quite serious and should not be a venue for political striving and demonologizing.

If we managed to overcome our hatred for the Japanese and Nazis and established sound and enduring relations with them, we should be able to do something similar with Cuba and especially Iran. But it is very much a we'll-see situation.

April 9, 2015--Running Against Washington

It is tempting to do so. Pretty much everyone thinks that "Washington" is broken and that to run against it as a presidential aspirant is a smart political idea.

Ronald Reagan did so successfully ("Government is not the solution to our problem; it is the problem") as did Jimmy Carter, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. And now we have Scott Walker, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and other Republicans proclaiming that they are outsiders (though at least two thus far are government employees, U.S. senators) and will either get the government to work, get it off our backs, or promise to do a combination of both.

I was reminded of this when reading, in The New York Review of Books, about David Axelrod's political memoir, Believer: My Forty Years in Politics.

In 2008, in a debate before the New Hampshire primary Axelrod recalls Hillary Clinton, by implication criticizing Barack Obama, declaring that she had been fighting for change all her life and "We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

Axelrod, and through him his candidate, seeing the political opening, jumped on her claim that it is difficult to bring about real change. He writes--

I recognized the opportunity that Hillary handed us. She was too much a part of the system in Washington ever to change it--and without changing the politics in Washington, real solutions to big problems would never come.

This may be a good way to win nominations and even get elected but it is a terrible approach to governing.

Like it or not, if we are to have a government (and even Tea Party people want some government--their Medicare, their Social Security, their military, their border police, their courts, their jails, their tax cuts) the only way for it to function is through various forms of bipartisan deal making. Deals between the President, his (or her) administration, and Congress, whichever party controls it.

Hillary was right--you have to be part of our system to get anything done. Forget changing it. And maybe she'll get a chance to try to function the old fashioned way. She may be boring, less than likable, and past her prime, but when she was a senator she did work this way and was able to get quite a lot accomplished.

The three presidents who got more of their agenda approved than any of their successors (whether or not you like their policies) were able to figure out ways to work with Congress. Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Ronald Reagan. Privately, very privately, for the most part they expressed little respect for specific members much less the system itself. But they held their noses and figured out ways to work with Congress, including, if they could, through intimidation.

To get things done, the lessons of history suggest, those willing and adept at working the system do better than those who claim to be outsiders. It's not sexy but it works.

February 19, 2015--"That's a Lot of Ice Cream"

"That's a lot of ice cream," Rona said after I read her an article from the New York Times website about Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu's and his wife Sara's personal spending. Spending that gets paid for or reimbursed by Israeli taxpayers.

In a report by Israel's state comptroller, it was revealed that the couple spends $2,700 annually on ice cream. He apparently prefers pistachio, she French vanilla.

This is far from the worst of it. Basic food expenditures have tripled to $120,000 a year since Netanyahu took office in 2009. To tell the truth, it does look as if he has put on weight. Now we know why.

In addition, the state spends $2,000 a month to clean their seaside cottage (which they rarely go to) and over the past two years, $68,000 for Sara's makeup, hairstyling, and what the controller calls her personal "presentation."

They also in 2013 billed the state for a "rest chamber," whatever that is, that was retrofit into the El Al plane that took them to Margaret Thatcher's funeral.

On the literal nickel-and-dime front, Sara Netanyahu was forced to reimburse the state $1,035 after being exposed for having pocketed the deposit money from recycled beverage bottles. That's a lot of Coke and Pepsi.

The report stated that the Netanyahus "strayed from the cornerstone principles of proportionality, reasonableness, saving, and efficiency."

They "strayed" so far that it is being suggested by legal authorities in Israel that they may be criminally liable for many of their expenditures.

In the meantime, with Bibi Netanyahu set to speak in early March to a semi-joint session of Congress (many Democrats have indicated they will risk the ire of the Israel lobby and boycott the Republican-sponsoerd campaign speech--Netanyahu is up for reelection a few days after he is scheduled to address Congress), he and Sara must be making plans to get El Al to reconfigure the cabin for them so there is enough freezer space for their ice cream supply and all the empty soda bottle they will be scooping up while in Washington.

December 19, 2014--Best of Behind: A Different Perspective

This is from November 24, 2009, after Barack Obama had been in office for just 10 months. My friend Dick, who contributed this different perspective, got it more right than I. I was already growing restive and he was counseling me to be patient and to look at the unfolding Obama agenda and leadership style in a different way, not as things are traditionally viewed in Washington and New York.

Considering the stunning announcement on Wednesday that Obama is moving to fully normalize relations with Cuba, I thought this was worth a second look--

If you’ve been paying even casual attention to these posts, you could not help but notice that I have been raising questions about President Obama.  

Is he being forceful enough in advancing the agenda he laid out so clearly and hopefully during the campaign? When it comes to health care legislation what does he really want? Is he committed to a single-payer option or is he willing to sign anything Congress sends him so he can claim he was the first president since Lyndon Johnson to reform the system?

What was he up to during his recent trip to Asia? It was good to see he was paying attention to the region after eight years of neglect by the Bush administration, but what did he actually achieve? After so much bowing to the Japanese, what happened in China? He seemed unwilling to make any demands on the leadership there in return for various U.S. concessions. Yes, they are our bankers and we will need them to lend us more money during the coming decade, but how about a word about human rights? How about receiving unfettered access to the Chinese media? He met with a handpicked group of university students who asked him pat questions—an event that was not televised throughout the country—and he wasn’t allowed to hold a press conference. Not impressive it felt to me.

And speaking of Asia, what is going on with regard to Afghanistan? Dick Cheney called it “dithering”; and I, help me, have been thinking that the former vice president may just have gotten this one thing sort of right.  

None of this has been seeming very presidential. Not the change I enthusiastically voted for.

Even my 101-year-old mother—an early and fervent supporter of Obama's—has been getting into the act, raising questions about the effectiveness of his leadership and how out of touch he appears to be with average Americans who are still very much hurting more than a year after his election.

But then there is the perspective of a friend who goes back about as far as I and has had through the years an excellent record of sensing shifts in the country's political culture. Before anyone I knew, for example, he not only recognized Obama’s talents but also foresaw the likelihood that he would be elected. He does not allow himself to be distracted by day-to-day instant analyses of who’s up and who’s down but rather sees things in broader, generational terms.  

So last night over dinner I was eager to get his views of Obama’s first ten months in office.

He felt that things were going rather well. He calmly reminded me about all the extraordinarily difficult problems that Obama inherited. “I know,” he said, “that most people by now are getting tired of hearing him talk about the legacy of ‘the previous eight years.’ But though that understandably might be the emotional and political case—that by now we would like to see more problems solved at home—they are so complex and deeply rooted that it will take much more time to chip away at things much less change them than even one term in office will allow.”

“I agree with that,” I said, “but shouldn’t he be more forceful about what he wants from Congress, our allies, and trading partners?”

“He is a different kind of person, a different kind of leader. He sees what that kind of blustery leadership has achieved—economic precariousness and a disenchantment with America among even our friends. He realizes how difficult and complicated it is to get Congress as it is currently constituted to pass transformative legislation. Or any legislation. Things are so partisan, special interests are so powerful, that to reach any sort of consensus, even among Democrats, is daunting.  

“So, for example, to leave health care legislation to the Congressional leaders, though it is messy and it looks as if he is indifferent, may very well be the one strategy that has a chance to succeed. And getting even a flawed bill passed may not only be as much as can be expected but may actually do some significant good. Just as though Medicare and Medicaid were and are flawed look how much benefit they have provided to the elderly and indigent.” 

“You may be right about this. But what about Afghanistan and the way he appears to be ineffective with, say, China and Japan?”

“I see the same things operating. His is a new and refreshing way. Perhaps just what is needed. We are no longer either the hegemonic military or economic power. At the end of the Cold War many felt that there would be a Pax Americana that would be the result of our unquestioned power and inclusive values, but that view turned out to be very short lived. Faced with terrorism and insurgencies, our vaunted might has turned out to be ineffective and of course our near economic collapse has shown that our form of capitalism is not a viable model for most of the rest of the world. In fact, even our cultural and ideological power has been shown to be compromised and inappropriate for most people and nations.”

“So you are agreeing with me.”

“Perhaps with your diagnosis but not your pessimistic views about Obama. If you hold on for a moment, let me complete my thought—about how the ways in which he has been acting domestically, in this new collaborative mode, is consistent with his view of diplomacy.”

“Go on.”

“I both cases he is displaying patience in the face of seemingly intractable problems. He knows none of these can be quickly or easily solved. Much repair work needs to be done before anything significant can occur. Trust needs to be reestablished. In regard to our role in the larger world, perhaps trust has to be established for the first time in nearly a century as we move into our own version of a post-colonial role.”

“Perhaps.”

“And in order to do so, to begin to achieve this, Obama appears to have decided to spend down some of his national and global political capital. Even at the risk of appearing to be weak and indecisive. Though many here are eager for certainty—for a leader who will tell them what to think and do (take note of Sarah Palin’s current popularity)—Obama is neither inclined to offer this nor does he believe it to be the best way to lead. His is an entirely different approach. He seems to be willing to build trust in others by actually trusting them. Not necessarily naively but with an understanding that they as well as he and we are always motivated largely out of self-interest.

“By doing this he is showing respect, rather than arrogance, because I feel he both respects others—or at least doesn’t underestimate them—and recognizes the roles that everyone needs to play to reach reconciliation and mutually-beneficial consensus.

“Remember, he is not only our first African-American president but is also our first Asian or Pacific president. He was born in Hawaii and spent formative years in Indonesia. So he combines within himself some of the cultural qualities he assimilated from those early years. It is of course dangerous to oversimplify what it means to be at least in part ‘Asian,’ but one thing that characterizes what that might mean is an understanding of the power or being yielding and indirect. And, make no mistake, these are powerful qualities. At least potentially so. And may turn out be in Obama’s case.”

As I suspected, he had given me some new things to think about, including what to order for dessert!

December 15, 2014--Backbone

For all the years of his presidency, Barack Obama has been criticized for his reluctance, almost visceral reluctance to confront Republican members of Congress who are devoted to undermining his presidency and thwarting his legislative agenda.

Critics claim that Obama has no appetite for confronting or even working with members of Congress. He is no Lyndon Johnson, they say, nor even a Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton who seemed to have been adept at collaborating with the opposition in order to get at least some of their agenda accomplished. But things are so bad now, it is alleged, that Obama doesn't even like involving himself with Democrat members of Congress.

In fact, he is so reluctant to deal with Congress that he is prone to negotiate with himself, preemptively giving up on programs in which he believes without a struggle or fight to avoid a confrontation and compromise down the road where, if he were inclined to do so, he would get some or all of what he sought.

The best example of this came during the battle over health care reform, over what eventually came to be known as the Affordable Care Act or, more popularly, Obamacare. He was an advocate for a time of the single-payer approach. A version of Medicare for all, but traded away that progressive and more cost-effective option without much of a fight and got nothing in return, no quid pro quo from Republicans. Just grief, which continues.

So, last week, when there was controversy about what to include in the $1.1 trillion bill to appropriate money to run the government, to avoid yet another shut-down, President Obama finally showed some political backbone and worked the phones to urge wavering members of Congress to support the bill before the House of Representatives and Senate. A bill that was passionately opposed by an unlikely coalition of liberals and Tea Party stalwarts, led principally by Nancy Pelosi in the House and Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz in the Senate.

But ironically the arms Obama twisted were those of reluctant Democrats who were upset by a rider stuffed into the 1,600-page bill by financial institution lobbyists that was designed to gut a major provision of Dodd-Frank, legislation passed four years ago to rein in some of the same kinds of risky practices of banks, using taxpayer-insured money, that led to the crash that became the Great Recession and which cost taxpayers hundreds of billions in bailout money.

So, with his new-found gumption, Obama wound up challenging Nancy Pelosi, who carried the congressional water for him for Obamacare and the economic stimulus, and not Mitch McConnell, who said on day-one of the Obama administration that his goal as minority leader was to assure that Obama would be a one-term president.

If he was going to fight for something, why didn't the president stand with fellow Democrats and fight to have that pro-big-bank rider purged from the bill? Even if it meant seeing the government shut down. That would have made Obama look like a leader, shown him supporting Main Street over Wall Street (good politics), and again having the Republicans to blame for pulling the plug on most of the operations of the federal government (even better politics).

Or am I missing something?

November 17, 2014--Co-Equal?

Flipping channels the other morning in search of anything other than the local weather forecast and reports about gridlocked traffic, I paused for a moment on MSNBC to see how their post-election post-mortem was proceeding.

They had already concluded that there was no chance of anything bipartisan happening between a cranky Republican Congress and an equally grumpy Barack Obama, who was about to issue a series of executive orders to deal in part with our immigration mess.

John Boehner was sputtering that if the president did this the GOP would fight him "tooth and nail," some of his members gleefully chiming in in the background that this could lead to Obama's impeachment; while over in the Senate, about-to-be Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said that if Obama signed those executive orders it would "be like waving a red flag in front of a bull" and could easily lead, McConnell threatened, to yet another government shutdown.

Boehner I ignored--he has his Tea Party members to contend with; but I took McConnell at his word because if there is anything he knows about it's bull.

One of the MSNBC panelists pointed out that Obama acting as promised would assure nothing gets done since, "in our system," the federal government is made up of "three co-equal parts" and unless there is some semblance of working together it will mean that more than the traffic will be gridlocked.

Really, I thought. Have the MSNBC folks read their Constitution recently?

In fact, in great detail, whatever we think of it, the Constitution goes to great length to make certain that the three branches of our government will be anything but equal or, if you prefer, co-equal. And to assure that the Congress, which at least theoretically most represents "the people," in fear of European-like monarchal tyranny or dominance by corrupt and unrepresentative courts, our Founders took care to structure things so that Congress would be preeminent.

Not the executive branch and not even the Supreme Court. In fact, creating the Supreme Court was an afterthought on the part of the Framers. That's how much they despised and feared the potential power of a corrupt judiciary. And so they severely limited its powers. As they did the presidency, again, for fear of tyranny.

Congress has the exclusive power to enact laws (forget executive orders which by their nature are constitutionally questionable--something we may see tested if Obama does his immigration thing) and once passed and approved the executive, like it or not, the president must enforce. Indeed, though bills passed by Congress must be approved by the president, if they are vetoed, the Congress still has the ultimate authority to enact them by voting to overturn that veto. And if the president refuses to follow the Constitution he can be impeached and removed from office. By Congress. As can Supreme Court and other federal judges. Again, solely by Congress. Only voters can get rid of even felonious or demagogic congressmen.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

What about the president's constitutional prerogatives as Commander in Chief? Doesn't that make him preeminent? Not really.

When the Constitution was written in 1787 the new republic didn't have a standing army and so there was very little for the Commander in Chief to command. In fact, the Framers were reluctant to agree to a standing federal militia or navy. That too they saw to be a threat to representative government. Again, looking toward Europe, it was the last thing they wanted.

It is only since the Second World War when, because of the advent of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles and the speed with which they can be launched, that so much retaliatory power has accrued to the presidency. But, again with the necessary acquiescence of Congress. It is felt that the national security state that we have become requires such powers be granted to the president. But, if Congress disapproves of presidential military ventures it has the exclusive power of the purse--only Congress can authorize governmental spending.

This doesn't sound co-equal to me.

And when it comes to the Supreme Court, it too is a bit less than supreme. True, for the most part, when they rule it becomes the so-called "law of the land." But they rule about very little and even if and when they do, if Congress does not like a ruling it can pass other similar laws designed to get around SCOTUS rulings and, if that fails, amend the Constitution. Admittedly this is a rare and arduous process, but still the power resides with the Congress (and the states) to change if they wish our most sacred document.

Again, this doesn't sound co-equal to me.

Like it or not, the structure of the government we have is not as viable as it was in the sleepier 18th, 19th, and even 20th centuries. But it is what we have. Governmental gridlock was not something to be avoided, but was a desired part of the process. A relatively weak and unintrusive federal government is what our Founders intentionally framed for us and though we now know how intrusive an unfettered government can be, because of checks and balances, an ineffective government with a dominant Congress is what we have. Just what was intended.

August 21, 2014--Obama's Past Tense

Over lunch with Loraine and Doug, after lots of catch up about family and work and what they've been doing while in Maine, she asked what we've been thinking about Barack Obama. She made a bit of a face which tipped off what she is feeling.

A lifelong progressive and feminist, Loraine in 2008 initially was a fervent supporter of Hillary Clinton's, but during the primaries found Obama's ability to inspire and his position on issues she cared deeply about to be so persuasive that she switched her support and offered her organizational skills to him and his campaign.

"I remember the excitement I felt when he won the nomination," she said now with a sense of sadness. "I found myself screaming with excitement, just like a teenager, and unashamedly and uncontrollably crying with joy."

I confessed that I found myself doing the same at that time and then later when he managed to get elected. If it were possible, when he gained a majority of Electoral College votes, I felt even more elated.

"The promise he represented," I said.

"For me," Loraine said, "it was more than that. It felt unbelievable that someone from his background, his mixed race background, who had spent his childhood in an Islamic country, that Americans could put all that aside and vote for him, to elect him. To me it seemed miraculous."

"It was a miracle," Rona said, "It felt as if America had healed its racial wounds, that we were voting as if to say--no, literally to say--we are one people. That the worst of our past is receding. For the current generation, hopefully, maybe it is fully healed. Wouldn't that be the end of the worst chapter in American history?"

"I felt it was all that," Doug, who is African-American, said.

"I notice," I said, "that we're speaking in the past tense. Or am I wrong? Am I projecting my frustrations with how things have turned out?"

"No, you're right," Loraine sighed.

"So what are you thinking now?" I asked.

"It's still the same miracle," she said, "But . . ." She trailed off.

"You know," Rona said, "we were at a dinner party last month with three other couples, all liberals, all of whom were enthusiastic supporters of Obama's."

"There's that past these again," Loraine said, smiling.

"Well, to the eight of us it was all past tense. No one was still feeling good about him. We as one said . . ." She didn't complete the thought.

"I still feel good about him," Loraine said. "In the present tense."

"I thought you were suggesting disappointment," I said.

"I am disappointed."

"Then I'm confused."

"In historical terms I feel good about him. Actually, still inspired."

"Because?"

"Because of what he represents and what he achieved. Maybe not in the governing arena--where I have become quite disillusioned--but in his very being. That he was able to inspire much of the nation and figure out a way to get elected. Twice. Amazing. Remarkable. Inspiring. But . . ."

"To be fair," Doug interrupted, "They--and you know who I mean--they did everything to thwart him, from day one to bring him down."

"From even before day one," I suggested.

"Right. So how could he have been more effective with all that fierce, bigoted opposition? His honeymoon lasted, what, maybe 15 minutes."

"Less."

"But, to be fair," Loraine offered, "He never figured out how to work with Congress even during the first two years when the Democrats controlled both houses. And, maybe more significant, where he has a lot of independent power, in foreign affairs, what can we say about him that's positive?"

No one said anything. Or had anything to offer.

"But, and it's a big but," Loraine concluded, "we've had other presidents who turned out to be disappointments."

"Many," I said, "Maybe most."

"And so he will probably be ranked by historians among those who have been disappointments. But I want to stay in touch with how I felt. Not to forget that. To continue to feel some measure of joy and inspiration. Our son, who looks like Obama, if you know what I mean," she glanced toward Doug, "for him anything is possible. That wasn't true the day he was born but today, because of Obama's example, it is. That means a lot to him, to me, to you as well," she winked at us, "And, if I may be so bold, to everyone else in this country. Even to those who don't recognize that or hate him. About this, they haven't a clue."

April 29, 2014--Career Politicians

Congressman Aaron Schook, Republican from Illinois, was a guest on Monday’s Morning Joe.

His current claims to fame? He just returned from a trip to six European countries accompanying Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan. And, more interesting, he had recently posted an Instagram photo of himself surfing in what looked more like Waikiki than Kiev.

When pressed about the photo, the former Cosmo model said that since nothing is private any more, wanting to control how he is perceived by the public, he is now posting things about himself to get control of his own "narrative."

As if there is pent-up desire for anyone to want to know more about him, much less how he looks in a bathing suit. Actually, quite hot, which, I was imagining, was why he was booked for Joe in the first place since when asked about anything involving public policy or foreign affairs, he sputtered innocuously, with a vacant but handsome look from standard Republican talking points.

When asked about immigration reform he said, correctly, that nothing will happen this congressional session unless Republicans and Democrats work together.

“Why is that so difficult?” he was asked.

He shrugged his shoulders and with a sigh said that when you think about running for Congress and then during the early days if elected, your desire to do “the right thing” evaporates when you realize this is “a hard thing to do.”

To this glimpse of insight there was no follow up.

Neither Mika nor any of the others (Joe was not present) asked why it’s hard.

Perhaps because they already knew the answer—new congressmen quickly learn that in the House to get along you have to go along with your party’s leadership (Democrats as well GOPers). And, in order to give yourself the best chance to be reelected every two years you have to tow the party line and not alienate the money people who will provide the cash to fund your campaigns.

Debriefing with Rona over coffee we talked about why neither of us has ever heard a reporter or cable news host probe why seemingly every member of Congress sees getting reelected time after time as his or her highest priority.

Rather than seeing this form of public service to be just that—service—all seemingly are primarily interested in building congressional careers.

Our Founders envisioned participation in the government to be a responsibility, not résumé building. They didn’t call for members of Congress to be paid (for years they weren’t) much less have retirement and health insurance benefits. Or, congressional barbershops, restaurants, and gyms.

They would be horrified to see people lingering in Congress for decades.

Wouldn’t it have been interesting for someone on Morning Joe to have asked Congressman Schook, who is a conservative and reveres the Constitution, how he reconciles his own congressional careerist ambitions with the vision of those who fought our Revolution, wrote our Constitution, and called for citizens to play limited and temporary roles in our government.

I’m not sure there are talking points for that. Either for congressmen or, for that matter, talk show hosts.