I hope Howard Dean will have an important role in the Obama Administration, otherwise it's a big mistake not to reappoint him to lead the DNC. Without Dean's visionary ideas about politics, Obama would never have been elected. Dean was the first candidate to develop a plan for recruitng volunteers and raising money via the internet. He was the architect of the 50-state strategy, which most Democrats fought.
I don't know where we're headed in future elections, but I would hate to see a visionary removed from a position where he can guide the party where it needs to go. Especially if the pundits are right, Obama wants to replace him with Claire McCaskill of Missouri - a move which harkens back to the traditional notion of appointing people who might win you a state you lost.
Here's hoping Dean is stepping down to lead the push for National Health Care, and not just leaving as part of a traditional political shuffle.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Monday, November 10, 2008
Finding the meaning of the election
I've been trying to capture in words what this election means, as I've experienced it. I think it's going to take a long time for us to fully appreciate the far-reaching significance. But here's a start, some thoughts that are coming into focus for me now.
1. Books will be written about the racial significance. It is indeed a milestone and a defining moment. The image of Jesse Jackson's tear stained face in the crowd listening to Barak's speech in Grant Park says it. It's the look of wonder in the eyes of African-American boys and girls who, even in this day, see this as affirming something new for them. Though legally permissible, the practical reality of one of them becoming president had not felt like a possibility. Now it is. It's what brought so many of us to tears that night, realizing that we hadn't even quite known how much we needed this defining moment until now it's here.
And this, that I didn't catch that night because -- who listens to the announcer? But now we read that Tuesday night with the crowd waiting for the speech and the hour at hand, the announcer did not say: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States." No, he said: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next First Family of the United States." And out onto the platform strode that beautiful, vibrant, comfortably assured young family -- Barak, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha -- who are all so devoted to each other and who genuinely find joy and love in their bonds and their time together. It's palpable, even from a distance. They will be a stunning role model as First Family, not just for African-American families, but for all families.
2. The Atlanta newspaper's Pulitzer winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich had another winner on November 5th. It showed President Obama sitting at his desk, taping back together the jigsaw puzzle-like fragments of the United States Constitution. Most of us don't even realize how much the Bush administration has shredded the fabric of our democracy. How fitting that we've elected a former professor of Constitutional Law to put it back together.
3. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was right; it matched Obama's wise plan to campaign in and for all states. Hillary was wrong when she said "He can't win." Not only did he win, he won all age groups except the oldest. He won a majority of both women and, by a narrow margin, men. He won urban votes but also suburban. There were remarkable flips, especially in Hispanics, who went for him by big margins and helped carry FL, CO, and NM. With the exception of the Appalachian region, down through TN, AR, OK, and Northern TX, the whole country shifted toward Democratic candidates. Even in states Obama didn't win, votes were closer than 2004, like Salt Lake City which McCain won by 2,000; Bush had won by 80,000.
4. Obama's popular vote margin of 6.5% and his electoral vote of 365 to 173 is a decisive victory, enough to call a mandate for change: on exit polls, those who put "change" as their most important criterion voted for Obama by 89 to 9. McCain's attempt to co-opt the mantra of "change," to portray himself and Palin as the Two Mavericks, failed to fool the people. In fact, none of their negative tactics worked; at most they activated their own base. One take away lesson from this election: the American electorate is not so easily fooled as it was in 2000 and 2004. Perhaps an economic crisis makes you think more clearly about where your real interests lie.
5. It means, for one thing, that we can trust our government again. I had not realized what a relief this will be. I no longer feel constantly tense, knowing "they" are screwing things up every day and lying about it, feeling it's up to me to do something but without power to do so. How odd that this seems remarkable: we can expect a government that is competent, transparent, honest and trustworthy, and one that respects science and welcomes the knowledge of experts. Now, we can relax and just trust our new president to do the right thing and to choose his administration based on intelligence, knowledge, and competence rather than political loyalty and desire to undermine the department they control.
6. I find it refreshing lately to be able to quote the other side in praise of Obama. Charles Krauthammer is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post and, in my opinion, he is usually offensively wrong. But here's his take on our President-elect; after discussing the mistakes of the McCain campaign, he says:
We have elected a mature, healthy, whole man, not someone whose drive for power can only be satisfied by the ultimate power job, or someone who is trying to work out his conflicted relationship with his father. His ambition seems to be primarily what he can do for the country and, ultimately, for the world. Critics would say that betrays a grandiosity, even messianic mania. But, if it is grounded in a mature, coherent self identity, instead of narcissism, it also happens to define the rare, transformative leader.
8. Most of all, I am filled with pride and admiration and contentment. We the American people have chosen an extraordinary man for a perilous time. He brings remarkable intelligence, wisdom, emotional maturity, and seemingly an ideal temperament for the demands of the job. Watching him grow over the past 22 months assures me that he will continue to grow in office and that he will be judged by history as one of our great presidents.
Ralph
1. Books will be written about the racial significance. It is indeed a milestone and a defining moment. The image of Jesse Jackson's tear stained face in the crowd listening to Barak's speech in Grant Park says it. It's the look of wonder in the eyes of African-American boys and girls who, even in this day, see this as affirming something new for them. Though legally permissible, the practical reality of one of them becoming president had not felt like a possibility. Now it is. It's what brought so many of us to tears that night, realizing that we hadn't even quite known how much we needed this defining moment until now it's here.
And this, that I didn't catch that night because -- who listens to the announcer? But now we read that Tuesday night with the crowd waiting for the speech and the hour at hand, the announcer did not say: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next President of the United States." No, he said: "Ladies and gentlemen, the next First Family of the United States." And out onto the platform strode that beautiful, vibrant, comfortably assured young family -- Barak, Michelle, Malia, and Sasha -- who are all so devoted to each other and who genuinely find joy and love in their bonds and their time together. It's palpable, even from a distance. They will be a stunning role model as First Family, not just for African-American families, but for all families.
2. The Atlanta newspaper's Pulitzer winning cartoonist Mike Luckovich had another winner on November 5th. It showed President Obama sitting at his desk, taping back together the jigsaw puzzle-like fragments of the United States Constitution. Most of us don't even realize how much the Bush administration has shredded the fabric of our democracy. How fitting that we've elected a former professor of Constitutional Law to put it back together.
3. Howard Dean's 50 state strategy was right; it matched Obama's wise plan to campaign in and for all states. Hillary was wrong when she said "He can't win." Not only did he win, he won all age groups except the oldest. He won a majority of both women and, by a narrow margin, men. He won urban votes but also suburban. There were remarkable flips, especially in Hispanics, who went for him by big margins and helped carry FL, CO, and NM. With the exception of the Appalachian region, down through TN, AR, OK, and Northern TX, the whole country shifted toward Democratic candidates. Even in states Obama didn't win, votes were closer than 2004, like Salt Lake City which McCain won by 2,000; Bush had won by 80,000.
4. Obama's popular vote margin of 6.5% and his electoral vote of 365 to 173 is a decisive victory, enough to call a mandate for change: on exit polls, those who put "change" as their most important criterion voted for Obama by 89 to 9. McCain's attempt to co-opt the mantra of "change," to portray himself and Palin as the Two Mavericks, failed to fool the people. In fact, none of their negative tactics worked; at most they activated their own base. One take away lesson from this election: the American electorate is not so easily fooled as it was in 2000 and 2004. Perhaps an economic crisis makes you think more clearly about where your real interests lie.
5. It means, for one thing, that we can trust our government again. I had not realized what a relief this will be. I no longer feel constantly tense, knowing "they" are screwing things up every day and lying about it, feeling it's up to me to do something but without power to do so. How odd that this seems remarkable: we can expect a government that is competent, transparent, honest and trustworthy, and one that respects science and welcomes the knowledge of experts. Now, we can relax and just trust our new president to do the right thing and to choose his administration based on intelligence, knowledge, and competence rather than political loyalty and desire to undermine the department they control.
6. I find it refreshing lately to be able to quote the other side in praise of Obama. Charles Krauthammer is a conservative columnist for the Washington Post and, in my opinion, he is usually offensively wrong. But here's his take on our President-elect; after discussing the mistakes of the McCain campaign, he says:
Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that, too.7. One reason Obama's campaign was so drama-free and so successful is that he knew who he was and what he wanted to do, and he simply stuck with it. The campaign didn't have to spend hours every day figuring out how to change the message for political effect. David Axelrod said his concern at the beginning was whether Obama "had that pathological drive to be president. You know, so often, what defines presidential candidates is this need to be president, to define themselves. He didn't have that. And, you know, we told him, 'You're gonna have to find some other way to motivate yourself.' And he did, which was what he could do as president."
With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.
We have elected a mature, healthy, whole man, not someone whose drive for power can only be satisfied by the ultimate power job, or someone who is trying to work out his conflicted relationship with his father. His ambition seems to be primarily what he can do for the country and, ultimately, for the world. Critics would say that betrays a grandiosity, even messianic mania. But, if it is grounded in a mature, coherent self identity, instead of narcissism, it also happens to define the rare, transformative leader.
8. Most of all, I am filled with pride and admiration and contentment. We the American people have chosen an extraordinary man for a perilous time. He brings remarkable intelligence, wisdom, emotional maturity, and seemingly an ideal temperament for the demands of the job. Watching him grow over the past 22 months assures me that he will continue to grow in office and that he will be judged by history as one of our great presidents.
Ralph
Hatred from the Right
It didn't take long. On election night four students at North Carolina State University spray-painted "Shoot Obama" and "Kill the nigger" in a tunnel on campus. What happened when they were caught? Nothing. They were scolded. I guess it's okay to call for the assassination of the president elect. The right wing whackos were apoplectic when someone hung a Halloween mock-up of Palin from a tree in California(following the Obama hung in effigy in Ohio). But - Surprise! Surprise! - I haven't heard one word from the right condemning the vile call for murder at NCSU.
Yesterday I saw an incredible one-man play written by Mike Wiley, based on Tim Tyson's novel "Blood Done Call My Name". It was about the racist murder of a young black man in Oxford, NC.
In 1970.
While I was graduating from Brockton High School, people down here were murdering young black men, and getting acquitted.
In 2008, we have college students calling for the murder of a man elected president just because he happens to be 50% African American.
Things haven't changed that much. And they probalby won't. Sarah Palin stoked the fires of hatred with her bitter, name-calling condemnatory campaign. And for a core group of fanatics, that hatred will continue to smolder. Yesterday I heard Limbaugh refer to Obama's government as "The Lewinskyites".
Besides the obvious idiocy of such a characterization, the use of that term speaks of a mind so narrow and prejudiced that he can't even attempt to tolerate, let alone understand, anyone whose views are different from his own. His 'dittoheads' will certainly mimic his hatred.
This came a day after he condemned a defeated Republican Congressman for daring to say the Republican Party needed to broaden its base, reach out to Blacks and Hispanics.
"No we don't," Rush screamed. He ended by saying good riddance to this Republican, he was glad he was defeated.
Obama has created an atmosphere where millions of people now feel safe to accept each other in the hopes of moving forward, creating, as cliched as it sounds, a more loving and just society.
We have to hope that the knuckle-draggers will soon die out, or find small caves to hide in where they can rail at the shadows on the wall and think they're talking to the world.
Yesterday I saw an incredible one-man play written by Mike Wiley, based on Tim Tyson's novel "Blood Done Call My Name". It was about the racist murder of a young black man in Oxford, NC.
In 1970.
While I was graduating from Brockton High School, people down here were murdering young black men, and getting acquitted.
In 2008, we have college students calling for the murder of a man elected president just because he happens to be 50% African American.
Things haven't changed that much. And they probalby won't. Sarah Palin stoked the fires of hatred with her bitter, name-calling condemnatory campaign. And for a core group of fanatics, that hatred will continue to smolder. Yesterday I heard Limbaugh refer to Obama's government as "The Lewinskyites".
Besides the obvious idiocy of such a characterization, the use of that term speaks of a mind so narrow and prejudiced that he can't even attempt to tolerate, let alone understand, anyone whose views are different from his own. His 'dittoheads' will certainly mimic his hatred.
This came a day after he condemned a defeated Republican Congressman for daring to say the Republican Party needed to broaden its base, reach out to Blacks and Hispanics.
"No we don't," Rush screamed. He ended by saying good riddance to this Republican, he was glad he was defeated.
Obama has created an atmosphere where millions of people now feel safe to accept each other in the hopes of moving forward, creating, as cliched as it sounds, a more loving and just society.
We have to hope that the knuckle-draggers will soon die out, or find small caves to hide in where they can rail at the shadows on the wall and think they're talking to the world.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
California marriage equality: not yet . . . again.
California is at war with itself over gay marriage. For those who may not have been following this issue, here are the basic facts:
1977: From 1850 until 1977, California marriage laws were gender neutral, a contract between two people. In 1977 the legislature defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."
2000: In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which enacted a law that defined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.
2004: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, in defiance of what he considered an unconstitutional and discriminatory law, ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. These nearly 4,000 marriages were later annulled by the CA Supreme Court upholding the law, as it was then written.
2005: CA legislature passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages. Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed it. Again in 2007 the legislature passed a similar bill and again the Gov. vetoed it.
2007: In the fall of 2007, a valid petition by voters put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. The operative phrase was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the same as in Proposition 22. But, whereas Prop22 was for a statute, which could be ruled unconstitutional, Prop8 was for a constitutional amendment which could not.
May 2008: CA Supreme Court ruled that the statue put into effect by Prop22 was unconstitutional, thus granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which began in June 2008. Some 18,000 couples married between June and election day.
Nov 2008: Prop8 passed by 52% to 48%, thus nullifying the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. It officially changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. There had been a massive, $60 million campaign to pass the measure, launched by Mormon and Catholic religious organizations. Their advertising included misinformation and scare tactics to inflame emotions.
To get on the ballot, a voter initiative requires simply a petition of voters equal to 8% of the number who voted in the last (2006) election of governor. This process completely bypasses the state legislature.
Legal challengers are claiming that, because this takes away a right that same-sex couples had been granted by court decision in its interpretation of the Constitution, it in fact is not "amending" the constitution but "revising" it and therefore has the higher requirements of legislative approval. Obviously this would make a great difference, since the legislature has already twice voted to make same-sex marriage legal. This is unlikely to prevail, since courts turned down a similar argument to stop Prop8 from getting on the ballot. However, that might have been simply a procedural decision, based on not preempting a voter initiative. So it's worth trying.
There it stands. My own opinion about the process is that it makes no sense for it to be this easy to amend a constitution on such important issues. Why bother to have a constitution if a small percent of voter can put it on the ballot and a simple majority can adopt it? Usually it is made difficult to amend constitutions in order to avoid this kind of highly emotional campaign fervor leading to bad decisions. In Georgia, by contrast, it requires a supermajority of 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature, followed by voters adopting it by a simple majority.
On the other hand, in this particular case, it also makes it equally easy to undo with another ballot initiative. In contrast, in Georgia, we will have to get our Republican majority legislature, both houses, to vote by 2/3 majority, to put it back on the ballot at some future date. In the foreseable future, that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Granted that many people oppose marriage equality for gays, while still being fully supportive of equality of rights and benefits, withholding only the benefit of "marriage" itself. Many people want to keep this distinction either from religious beliefs or because of not wanting to change what is such a tradition, feeling that it would somehow take something away from the institution of marriage as we have known it.
However, first I would offer the evidence that, in the three years experience in Massachusetts of gay and lesbian marriages, there has been no discernable effect on heterosexual marriages or on the institution itself. Second, I offer this anecdote to ponder:
In the 2004 flurry of gay marriages in San Francisco, first-in-line to get their license were the lesbian couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, iconic leaders of the gay rights movement who had also been life partners for over 50 years. Their 2004 marriage was later annulled by the Court.
Just a few weeks prior to this, Britney Spears waked up one morning after a night of wild partying with an old high school boyfriend and discovered that, without quite meaning to, she had married him at a midnight ceremony in the 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas. In the 52 hours that it took Britney's handlers to get it annulled, she was entitled to more than 1000 government benefits that are available to married couples but that were denied to Del and Phyllis.
Fortunately, Del and Phyllis had another opportunity to get married, which they did last August. And this time it was legal. Del died a few weeks later at the age of 87 of the cancer she had been battling. But she died legally married to her long time partner.
Britney's subsequent troubles with drugs, divorce, second marriage, drugs, second divorce, child custody battles, scuffles with police as she shuttled in and out of drug rehab, raises the question: who demeaned the institution of marriage: Britney or Del and Phyllis?
Ralph
1977: From 1850 until 1977, California marriage laws were gender neutral, a contract between two people. In 1977 the legislature defined marriage as "a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman."
2000: In 2000, voters passed ballot initiative Proposition 22 with 61% of the vote, which enacted a law that defined marriage in California as a union between a man and a woman.
2004: San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsome, in defiance of what he considered an unconstitutional and discriminatory law, ordered marriage licenses to be issued to same-sex couples. These nearly 4,000 marriages were later annulled by the CA Supreme Court upholding the law, as it was then written.
2005: CA legislature passed a law recognizing same-sex marriages. Governor Schwartzenegger vetoed it. Again in 2007 the legislature passed a similar bill and again the Gov. vetoed it.
2007: In the fall of 2007, a valid petition by voters put Proposition 8 on the November 2008 ballot. The operative phrase was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," the same as in Proposition 22. But, whereas Prop22 was for a statute, which could be ruled unconstitutional, Prop8 was for a constitutional amendment which could not.
May 2008: CA Supreme Court ruled that the statue put into effect by Prop22 was unconstitutional, thus granting full marriage rights to same-sex couples, which began in June 2008. Some 18,000 couples married between June and election day.
Nov 2008: Prop8 passed by 52% to 48%, thus nullifying the May 2008 Supreme Court decision. It officially changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry. There had been a massive, $60 million campaign to pass the measure, launched by Mormon and Catholic religious organizations. Their advertising included misinformation and scare tactics to inflame emotions.
To get on the ballot, a voter initiative requires simply a petition of voters equal to 8% of the number who voted in the last (2006) election of governor. This process completely bypasses the state legislature.
Legal challengers are claiming that, because this takes away a right that same-sex couples had been granted by court decision in its interpretation of the Constitution, it in fact is not "amending" the constitution but "revising" it and therefore has the higher requirements of legislative approval. Obviously this would make a great difference, since the legislature has already twice voted to make same-sex marriage legal. This is unlikely to prevail, since courts turned down a similar argument to stop Prop8 from getting on the ballot. However, that might have been simply a procedural decision, based on not preempting a voter initiative. So it's worth trying.
There it stands. My own opinion about the process is that it makes no sense for it to be this easy to amend a constitution on such important issues. Why bother to have a constitution if a small percent of voter can put it on the ballot and a simple majority can adopt it? Usually it is made difficult to amend constitutions in order to avoid this kind of highly emotional campaign fervor leading to bad decisions. In Georgia, by contrast, it requires a supermajority of 2/3 vote of each house of the state legislature, followed by voters adopting it by a simple majority.
On the other hand, in this particular case, it also makes it equally easy to undo with another ballot initiative. In contrast, in Georgia, we will have to get our Republican majority legislature, both houses, to vote by 2/3 majority, to put it back on the ballot at some future date. In the foreseable future, that is highly unlikely, if not impossible.
Granted that many people oppose marriage equality for gays, while still being fully supportive of equality of rights and benefits, withholding only the benefit of "marriage" itself. Many people want to keep this distinction either from religious beliefs or because of not wanting to change what is such a tradition, feeling that it would somehow take something away from the institution of marriage as we have known it.
However, first I would offer the evidence that, in the three years experience in Massachusetts of gay and lesbian marriages, there has been no discernable effect on heterosexual marriages or on the institution itself. Second, I offer this anecdote to ponder:
In the 2004 flurry of gay marriages in San Francisco, first-in-line to get their license were the lesbian couple Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon, iconic leaders of the gay rights movement who had also been life partners for over 50 years. Their 2004 marriage was later annulled by the Court.
Just a few weeks prior to this, Britney Spears waked up one morning after a night of wild partying with an old high school boyfriend and discovered that, without quite meaning to, she had married him at a midnight ceremony in the 24 hour wedding chapel in Las Vegas. In the 52 hours that it took Britney's handlers to get it annulled, she was entitled to more than 1000 government benefits that are available to married couples but that were denied to Del and Phyllis.
Fortunately, Del and Phyllis had another opportunity to get married, which they did last August. And this time it was legal. Del died a few weeks later at the age of 87 of the cancer she had been battling. But she died legally married to her long time partner.
Britney's subsequent troubles with drugs, divorce, second marriage, drugs, second divorce, child custody battles, scuffles with police as she shuttled in and out of drug rehab, raises the question: who demeaned the institution of marriage: Britney or Del and Phyllis?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
