June 26, 2015--Obamacare!

With the Supreme Court decision announced yesterday that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is constitutional, in addition to all the lives that will be bettered and saved as a result, there is one jolly political irony for those of us who consider it a pretty good piece of social legislation and feel that Barack Obama deserves to leave office in two-and-a-half years with his reputation, all right--his legacy, enhanced.

Here's the irony--

From literally the day Obama was elected in November 2008, many activist Republicans saw his election somehow to be illegitimate and have done everything they can to bring him down and delegitimatize him and his accomplishments--again, his legacy.

This is not to say that he has been a "great" or even a "near-great" president (if he secures a sound deal with Iran regarding their nuclear weapons program his stature will rise further) or that he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009, but all things considered--the economy, the roiled world with its out-of-control nationalisms and terrorism--he has done a rather good job. The economy is decidedly better than the one he inherited and he did end in an admittedly bumpy way the two wars that George W. Bush started and led into chaos.

But still GOP leaders and most of their followers wake up every day thinking about what they can do to undo everything Obama had a hand in accomplishing. Nothing more fervently than the ACA which the House of Representatives under John Boehner's fractured leadership voted to repeal literally dozens of times. There was a time during 2010 after the GOP seized control of the House that they did so every week for months.

Even Jeb Bush yesterday, with all the courage of a marshmallow, vowed to repeal it the day he is sworn into office in January 2017

As a sneering epithet to stigmatize the ACA, Republicans labeled it Obamacare. They couldn't say it enough. It was supposed to remind Americans that this abominable piece of legislation was the result of "his" efforts, the best evidence that he was a European-style socialist.

The name stuck. And isn't it amusing that this healthcare law, which is already providing life-saving coverage for up to 17 million previously uninsured Americans, many of them poor, and now twice has been upheld by a radically divided Supreme Court, will likely remain a permanent part of our social safety net alongside Social Security and more appropriately Medicare and Medicaid?

No other law that I can think of is named for a president. Social Security isn't called Roosevelt-Security, Medicare is not referred to as Johnsoncare, nor is the Voting Right Act named for LBJ. Welfare reform is not Clintonfare. Yes, we have the Monroe and Truman Doctrines but they were promulgated by an executive order, not something hatched with their leadership and then considered and passed by Congress.

Obamacare will be the way the Affordable Care Act will forever be known. So three-cheers for it and Obama.

As Joe Biden was heard to say on an open mike back in Match 2010 when it was passed, "This is a big f---ing deal."

June 2, 2015--One Man (sic) One Vote

If there is a case pending before the Supreme Court that has the potential to change life in America as we have come to know it, it is not their soon-to-be-announced ruling on same-sex marriage or even down the line Roe v. Wade.

It is how the Supremes will rule in 2016 on voting. On what used to be called one man one vote which in our current era is referred to as one person one vote.

Here's the issue--

Currently, election districts are drawn so that approximately the same number of residents are included in each one. SCOTUS will decide whether or not in their view this is constitutional or if districts made up of equivalent numbers of voters better satisfie the meaning of one person one vote.

If they decide the latter (and in previous cases that have raised similar questions the court has ruled that everyone needs to be counted, not just voters) this will dramatically shift electoral power away from urban centers and more toward suburban and rural communities.

In other words, districts that include only voters in their count will be much more conservative (read Republican) since cities with large immigrant populations (including undocumented ones who get counted but don't vote) are traditionally more liberal but as a percentage of population have fewer voters than rural or suburban communities.

Such a shift would have major political consequences and could lead to that long-dreamed-of permanent Republican majority. Thus, considering the iron ideological division in the current Supreme Court it is no surprise that the Chief Justice has opted to once again bring it to the court's attention. In his view, clearly, the current constitutionally-defined structure for election districts is not settled law. Just as the Voting Rights Act, which recently they substantially gutted, turned out not to be settled law.

We know right now, before even one brief is filed much less an oral argument offered, that at least seven or eight of the nine justices already have their minds made up. This shouldn't be, but that is how it works these days in the federal courts. Ideology and political orientation rule.  Pun intended.

January 28, 2015--"Selma"

As award season unfolds there is controversy surrounding the film Selma. Some are asking why, if it was nominated for an Oscar for best picture, why weren't the director, Ava DuVernay, and David Oyelowo who plays Martin Luther King nominated? Could it be, it is being whispered, because of Hollywood's racism? Forgetting for the moment that last year, Twelve Years A Slave won for best picture.

An additional controversy surrounds the depiction of Lyndon Johnson, who was president at the time. In "Selma" he is represented as resisting King's efforts to secure legislation to strip away impediments to Negroes being able to register and vote in the South and is shown needing to be pressured and even forced to support this struggle.

The historical record reveals this to be untrue and thus the film presents a seriously unfair picture of LBJ and his position on voting rights. In fact, some former Johnson aides and historians are claiming that the idea to march in Selma was more LBJ's than King's and they marshall evidence from audio tapes of White House conversations between MLK and Johnson to support that view.

Here, from the transcript of a taped telephone call between King on Johnson on January 15, 1965 (two months before the King-led Selma campaign) is that evidence of LBJ's commitment and how he suggested the strategy--

JOHNSON: We take the position that every person born in this country, when he reaches a certain age, that he have the right to vote . . . whether it's a Negro, whether it's a Mexican, or who it is . . . . I think you can contribute a great deal by getting your leaders and you, yourself, taking very simple elements of discrimination; where a [black] man's got . . . to quote the first 10 Amendments [in a voter registration literacy test], . . . and some people don't have to do that, but when a Negro comes in to do it, and if we can, just repeat and repeat and repeat. 

And if you can find the worst condition that you run into in Alabama, Mississippi or Louisiana or South Carolina . . . and if you just take that one illustration and get it on radio, get it on television, get it in the pulpits, get it in the meetings, get it everyplace you can. Pretty soon the fellow that didn't do anything but drive a tractor will say, "Well, that's not right," and then that will help us on what we're going to shove through [Congress] in the end. 

KING: Yes. 

JOHNSON:  And if we do that we will break through. It will be the greatest breakthrough of anything, not even excepting this '64 [Civil Rights] Act, I think the greatest achievement of my administration.

This does not sound like LBJ needed to be dragged kicking and screaming to support the voting rights agenda.

What would have been the problem to represent King and Johnson as partners, albeit wary partners?  Let's see what the film's director had to say about this distortion of history.

When asked, Ava DuVernay said that the original screenplay needed "extensive rewriting" because it was a script for a "traditional bio-pic" that presented "antiquated and patronizing" ideas about history and the civil rights movement.

In her words--

If, in 2014, we're still making 'white-savior movies' than it's just lazy and unfortunate. We've grown up as a country and cinema should be able to reflect what's true. And what's true is that black folks are the center of their own lives and should tell their own stories from their own experiences. [My italics.]

Even if what is represented as "true" isn't.

It is a shame that this otherwise inspiring and meaningful movie is being shown to young students as a full and accurate history of that brave era. I think it might have been the Reverend King himself who many times reminded us that it is only the truth that will set us free.

April 1, 2104--Progressives' Dirty-Little-Secret

Here's the dirty-little-secret--

Liberals and progressives like me are actually clandestinely happy with most of George W. Bush's policies.

That's why there are no large-scale protests. Occupy Wall Street came and went in a month. The rest is silence except for the occasional New York Times editorial and the shouting and smugness that passes for political discourse on MSNBC.

With the tax season culminating in two weeks, we liberals are especially happy with what the Bush-era tax cuts have meant for us.

Demographically, progressives are more highly educated, have better jobs, and earn more money than "ordinary" conservatives. Thus, all things being equal (which they are not thanks to the previous president) we affluent lefties have disproportionately benefitted from the 2001 tax reductions that Bush promulgated (to be fair and balanced, 12 Democratic senators voted for them) and Obama reupped in 2009, with Democrats in numbers again endorsed.

On Saturday from our accountant we received our filled-out tax forms for 2013. We had a good earnings years and needed to pay a little more than in 2012. But, but, as the result of the Bush-Obama tax cuts we owed about $5,000 less than we would have had to pay under Clinton's more progressive tax polices.

Furthermore, how many liberals are out in the streets protesting cuts in food stamps and aid to education; slashes in spending for medical and science research; less available for environmental protection; cutbacks in support for women's health programs; Supreme Court decisions to allow unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns and the effective rollback of the Voting Rights Act of 1965?

We're even OK with Bush's Patriot Act and Obama's use and expansion of it since we care more about protecting our comforts than our privacy.

And, since we have an all-volunteer military and our children and grandchildren are not in danger of being drafted, much less inclined to sign up and be shipped off to Iraq or Afghanistan (or Ukraine), beyond spouting rhetoric about how awful all this is, how perfidious and hypocritical Republicans are (they are), we secretly smile when we sign our tax forms, sit back on the deck at our vacation homes, and sip Chablis while streaming House of Cards.

Hey, if these policies don't affect me directly why get all out of joint much less use Twitter as they do or did in Egypt and Venezuela and Russia to mobilize? It's cold out there, it might rain, and I might even get my head busted by an overzealous policeman.

Even if half the states so restrict abortions as to make them unavailable, we live on one or the other of the coasts--so no problem.

Actually, for the fortunate us there are few problems with anything.