Grow up/Game on.

Originally, I was planning what I thought was an interesting and creative post suggesting Obama should nominate himself to the Supreme Court (I know of no law prohibiting it), resign his post as President, allow Biden to serve as #45 for a few months, and contribute a much needed practical perspective to the Court’s jurisprudence.  In the end, though, I had planned to suggest we have so many qualified judges, prosecutors, law professors and others that President Obama doesn’t need to nominate himself.  There are dozens if not hundreds of more qualified Obamas out there that would serve the Court well for years.

Instead of all that, I have one reaction this Sunday morning for any Republican politicians or otherwise who is claiming that Obama shouldn’t nominate Scalia’s successor – grow up.  This is ridiculous. It’s the “I’m taking my ball and going home” argument, except they didn’t even bring a ball to the playground in the first place.  The President fills vacancies on the Court. Done. End of sentence.

There is no “a conservative must be replaced by a conservative.” It’s an artificial, made up balance that you don’t get to enforce when something like this happens.  Stop throwing a tantrum like a small child.  President Obama is still president for almost an entire year, just over 11 months.  He gets to find a replacement. The Senate must vet and confirm qualified candidates. If the Senate does not do its job, and plays the role of petulant child (to what end I don’t even know), the American people will lose further faith and confidence in our government.  The Supreme Court is the one branch more than any other that relies on trust and faith. Lower courts, companies, individuals, state governments and many more parties to disputes take action in the real world because of something these 9 people wrote on a piece of paper.  If we lose faith in the Court, and people stop following the Court’s orders, then it can get scary quick. To wit, it would require the executive branch/law enforcement to physically enforce the Court’s decisions.  That’s not a place any of us want to go.

But it’s where we’ll end up, if short-sighted politicians play games with real power and influence.  Of course right now it’s only the usual suspects – Cruz, McConnell, etc. – but I was disappointed to see Gov. Kasich chime in during last night’s debate.  I’d like to believe he did not have much time to consider all angles and he’ll return to earth with a proper approach this week.  Or maybe I am completely out of touch with the GOP and how politics is played today? It’s not impossible.  I’d like to think that’s not the case and I’m simply approaching this objectively and with common sense.

When a Supreme Court justice passes away in office, the President selects and nominates a replacement. It’s that simple. Ask any high school civics class.

Now, this is not to say President Obama is not without practical constraints and a sense of duty of his own.  President Obama should work with Congressional Republicans to find a replacement that everyone can support.  Of course he should.  I’m not writing this morning for unilateral Presidential power or for Obama to get whatever he wants.  What I’m suggesting is that the political machine should gear up and get to work.  For Obama to simply put off this responsibility for 11 months simply because his term is ending or because 2-3 power Elephants think a Republican will be in the White House on January 20, 2017 is not right. It’s just not.  The President should select a candidate that is undeniably qualified and the Senate should do its job and put that candidate through the vetting and testing, but based in reality and fact, not political gamesmanship.

To continue the ball theme, Obama is the football coach whose team got the ball back on a controversial call in a tie game looking down the field with 80 yards to go and less than 1 minute on the clock. The Republicans are playing defense shouting at the ref about the call.  They’re just hoping for the other team will kneel on the ball and go to overtime.  A coin flip will decide who gets the ball in OT and somehow that’s better. (It shouldn’t escape us that it will allow them to ratchet up the fear factor in this election cycle. We should elect a GOP candidate to preserve the balance on the Court. Sheesh.)

Let’s show the American people, in this, an election year, that we still have the ability to conduct ourselves professionally and responsibly.  Tomorrow is President’s Day and I realize that the Court has always been a political football of sorts. Presidents placed their friends on the Court. A President attempted to restructure the Court to do his narrow political will. The Court has to make tough choices that, in some cases, the other 2 branches couldn’t handle. I’m not suggesting the Court can never be used for political ends.

I’m saying let’s ACTUALLY play the game. It’s game time. This is what its all about. A SCOTUS justice passes away. The President nominates a qualified replacement. The Senate ensures the selection is capable of the job. And it all happens in the fishbowl of Washington politics.  Fair game. Game on.

 

What did we learn tonight?

I think there were two valuable lessons from tonight’s primary results in New Hampshire.  First, follow Aaron Rodgers advice and R-E-L-A-X, relax. This is New Hampshire. This primary, while first, is always quirky and never an indication of the winner.  Instead, it is a test of a variety of smaller questions.  New Hampshire can end a campaign but it cannot lock-in a winner. Let’s not assume that now Sanders and Trump and the presumptive favorites. It’s just not true. HRC has 8x the delegates of Sanders already and Trump has only a slight lead over the field in committed delegates.

Second, and perhaps more important than anything else in this election thus far, diversity breeds understanding, compassion, and complexity.  Homogeneity makes things easy. My initial response to Senator Bernie Sanders’s candidacy was one of nonchalance and respect. Respect because here was a man who had not changed his message for more than 35 years. His entire adult life devoted to a single idea – social justice. Nonchalance because while I respect Senator Sanders’s commitment his message seems more fitting for a political science classroom than a ballot box.  I will admit this could be the exact attitude that keeps the establishment in power but it is also realistic.

I have exactly the opposite view of Mr. Trump. Intense concern and disrespect. Mr. Trump is not the idealist but the instigator. Believing only in winning at all costs, Trump simply appeals to the basis instinct of a frustrated and confused mob.  This is not as bad as it sounds because I don’t believe it will lead to violence the way some on the right and the left, alike, fear (or like to imply).  What’s true is that limited, similar populations tend to be able to pull off ideologies that do not work in a large complex nation.  Exhibit A – Scandinavia. Exhibits B&C – Iowa & New Hampshire.

Sanders and Trump, as ideas, do not work (or win) in a country of 350 million people all pursuing their own individual self interest.

So, while I love New Hampshire as a place to live, work, visit, vacation, eat, drink and relax, it is not a barometer of the country. It is a relatively similar population with a quirky, independent streak that most people either love or have never encountered.

But before you think I’m headed for the obligatory “nothing to see here,” I do have one big takeaway. John Kasich and Jeb Bush finishing second and (probably) third, respectively, could mean a few months from now we are talking about how all we needed was patient to see the “real” candidates rise to the top.  This not meant to diminish the popularity or success of Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Marco Rubio, but it seems the age/experience/timing supports Kasich and Bush being more more traditionally popular choices.  You could argue that 2016 is game changer for politics in this country but I doubt it.  Generally, we’ve shifted back and forth from young to experienced from Republican to Democrat. Carter-Reagan/Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama. In that pattern, Kasich and Bush seem the more logical frontrunners. Tonight could be the night that shifts the GOP from Cruz/Rubio to Kasich/Bush. We’ll see.

The adult in the room theory

In some ways, it is not my theory and yet you would think more people would be talking about it.  Unless, of course, you had a vested interest in keeping the ludicrous cycle of clicks and sound bytes flowing.  But I digress. This is not about this author, who has fewer readers than Martin O’Malley, being smarter than cable news commentators. This is about why Hillary Clinton is going to win the Presidency of the United States.

I kept waiting for someone or something to prove me wrong. I aired the theory at several dinners with friends and family. Still, I’m finding the mainstream media unwilling or unable to state the following: the Republican candidates for the Party’s nomination do not appear serious or, in other cases, capable. The serious one (read, Jeb! Bush) is pushed to the back of the line and discounted. The capable ones (read, John Kasich and Chris Criste) are either mocked or taunted. The young, pretty one (read, Marco Rubio) is careful not to say anything of substance…ever. The smart one (read, Ted Cruz) is disliked and not representative of the American people or any people. The woman (read, Carly Fiorina) is not allowed to be on stage, though that may be ABC News’ fault, and has some questions of leadership and decision-making. The non-politicians (read, really?) are the definition of half-hearted and inexperienced. And this is not a partisan piece. Yes, I’m purposely targeting the weakest point of each candidate but there is something here. It’s like that moment at a restaurant when you cannot decide between 3-4 dishes and inevitably whichever one you pick, the salmon, you feel like you are missing the better choice.  I’ll leave it to you to decide which candidate is the filet.

The point is this – who is the adult in the room? When things get serious in, I-don’t-know, the general election, the American people are want to go with strength and stability. If the election were today, we have a problem. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the most experienced and traditionally prepared for the job, is having trouble with appearing “too political” (accepting money from Goldman Sachs while threatening to be tough on Wall Street) and likable. It is unclear if push comes to shove whether the American people need the president to be likable.  Ever since Ronald Reagan, it would appear the answer is yes.

There in lies the rub. The Republicans might not consolidate around their adult.  Or they might not have one. Or the donors/media coverage/voters might not let the Party pick one. If the GOP doesn’t send a clear message, the voters will be left with only one option. HRC.

Her likability, her fluid relationship with the email classification, her inability to connect and her history with her husband will not matter when things get serious. We vote for the adult in the room. Bottom line.

A lot can happen in 7 months. 7 months ago Tom Brady was suspended for 4 games, Peyton Manning was coming off injury, Andrew Luck was a top fantasy football draft pick and the over/under on Carolina Panthers wins was like 7.5.  A lot can change in 7 months. An election is no different than a football season.  It’s why we watch the games.  Only with elections its for keeps. A minimum of 4 years with an option for 4 more and a place in history. #45.

We like entertainment and drama as much as the next civilized country. So, we allow the Bernies and Donalds and others to hang out when it’s cold (in part of the country) and we indulge our imagination, but that’s all it is. An indulgence.

Though the media echo chamber makes it hard to hear in the moment, it feels a lot like an intelligent lawyer, U.S. Senator, and Secretary of State rises to the top when things get serious…and they always get serious.

Unless something drastic changes, we vote for the adult in the room and that is HRC.

 

President Obama’s Big Picture

In today’s New York Times, Maureen Dowd wrote a column that is already one of the most e-mailed stories on the website and brought up something really interesting about President Obama’s attitude (or at least focus) in his second term.  Really it is the second half of his second term.  In these two years, the President is often referred to as a “lame duck” implying the President no longer has the prospect of being reelected (or affecting the mid-term elections) and therefore cannot be “held accountable” by voters.

A President’s behavior in these years can be extremely informative about a President’s character and priorities.  In college, I wrote my senior thesis on Presidential motivations when reelection (or any election) is no longer a consideration.  Comparing lame duck Presidents brought up two key points. First, Presidents did act with less restraint or at least attempted too in the lame duck years.  Second, most Presidents (Reagan and Clinton, specifically) were unable to fully pursue their stated goals because each was constrained by scandal (at worst) and external forces (at best).

Similarly, though occurring after my research, George W. Bush had more of a mixed experience. His lame duck years were quieter probably due to diminished public opinion and the intensity of the “other” 6 years.  His last year devoted to the on-coming financial crisis.  Put bluntly, there was not much time or opportunity for the boldness or scandal associated with the conventional wisdom of a what lame duck is.

According to Ms. Dowd, President Obama “rewriting” the lame duck years.  She writes, “Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to tell colleagues that one is only president from the inauguration to the first midterm. But President Obama is rewriting the book on Oval Office juice.” My initial response was – oh, come on.

Admittedly, I jumped to conclusions.

I was assuming Dowd was giving Obama more credit simply because it’s been so long since we have had a comparable second term (Clinton).  Upon 10-seconds of actually thinking about it, it occurred to me that one difference between Reagan, Clinton and Bush is that Obama is largely free from personal or political scandal and unconstrained by international tension (at least at it relates to our homeland).  He is free to focus on topics or make comments that in earlier years his political advisors would almost certainly have demanded he steer clear.

What I cannot understand is why? Why can a President only speak his mind and make his supporters (and himself) proud when elections are no longer on the horizon.  Some may call it naive, but if President Obama cannot “go Bulworth” as the article suggests, then no one can.  The combination of 24/7 news cycle, social media and so-called super political action committees (PACs) has rendered straight-forward, candid thought impossible.  Now, I don’t know if those are the three largest culprits but I intend to continue to explore this in coming months.

My take has always been that politics is like any other market.  Voters are consumers.  Candidates are producers/providers.  The candidate with the best product or service at the appropriate price point will win the most voters.  Note: this does not always mean the most inexpensive.  Seems to me like we (the electorate) are primed for the candidate who speaks – the entire campaign – like its their lame duck years.

Perhaps this is impossible without the essential confidence-building years of actually being President beforehand.  President Obama recently sat with Marc Maron for Maron’s WTF podcast.  During the hour-long conversation, Obama reflected on how much more confident and precise he is now as compared to his first campaign.  So, I’ll admit a candidate running on the Lame Duck strategy without the experience could be seen as reckless or dangerous.  See: Trump, Donald.

I’m not advocating the speak-first and think-later strategy of a publicity whore.  I’m suggesting candidates must channel creativity, candor and courage in order to get the attention of new markets (see: consumer analogy from earlier).  The real progress will be made when we recapture a large market share of the middle.  It’s like the real economic recovery.  We need to get new consumers/new capital back in the market.  Similarly, I have hopes that President Obama’s lame duck years overlapping with the 2016 President election will spark a new attention to the changing social-political landscape.  Yeah, I won’t hold my breath.

At the same time, I think Ms. Dowd correctly pointed out that President Obama could still have a dramatic impact on the country and the election if he wants to.  According to her column, this is who he is.  Based on the past 6 years, I’ll withhold judgment until we have a few more examples.  But I’ll definitely be watching.  One thing is for sure, President Obama may have the purest form of lame duck politics that we’ve seen in a generation or more.

President Barack Obama

Thanks for reading.

We’re back. Explanation needed?

In some ways, it was best to take a break from The Political Pickle about 18 months ago. Working hard in a new job, spending time with a new daughter, and becoming frustrated (cynical?) with the political climate, I decided to stop the small experiment that was this blog.  Over the last 18 months I basically dismissed politics and chalked everything coming out of Washington as smoke-and-mirrors.

More recently, I have felt the tug to get back into amateur political observation.  The upcoming 2016 Presidential election partly to blame, I also have been moved back several large social shifts in the last few months and year – law enforcement boundaries, race relations, gun violence and same-sex marriage, just to name a few.

And while I still have a time-consuming job, an energetic daughter and my healthy skepticism of politics, I enjoy writing and the outlet for my thoughts on today’s issues.  I think I need this. We’ll see if it lasts.

Enough said.

Obamacare but who cares?

This week I saw two interesting things that have driven me back to the blog: 1). Healthcare.gov did not spiral down into a political story. It somehow stayed relatively factual and 2). Everyone missed/is missing the point.

To me, this isn’t about public healthcare, President Obama’s leadership or the government being able to handle a major website.  Though all those things are true especially in the short term, these outcomes – ineffective launches, partial solutions/partial failures, and discord in addressing problems – are symptoms of a larger problem.  We, the royal we, all of us, do not want to have to put in the work required to solve problems, to get things right, to actually implement positive change (and not just change for change sake).

Our expectations about work, timing and sacrifice have so drastically changed as a result of technology that our perception of public policy is now totally unrealistic.  We want complete and beneficial solutions and we want them immediately.  We elected President Obama in the midst of a financial crisis and two wars but then pretended like that wasn’t a big deal and he should have us out of trouble in less than a year. Two or three years tops.  I’m as guilty as the next voter of unrealistic expectations 6 years ago.  The difference, I think, is that somewhere along the line I realized it.

Let me use Healthcare.gov as an example.  Throughout the last week or so, we’ve heard a series of complaints (larger issues than just a crashing website) – Obamacare was a bad idea, government cannot do “big things,” this is going to continue to fail now that the launch failed.  What we’ve forgotten is that the private marketplace wasn’t doing a great job prior to this attempt.  Healthcare was expensive, limited in its coverage and exclusive to certain types (or classes) of people.  So, in this era of quick fixes and high expectations, we’ve conveniently forgotten that one reason we had to resort to Obamacare was the private market failed.  Furthermore, we don’t know the government is going to do it well or even right.  Public policy is, by nature, trial and error.  But is that a reason not to try or to give up on Obamacare?  If so, what’s your idea? What’s a better idea?  Returning it to employer-based private healthcare returns us to a system of inflated costs, ballooning treatment, no prevention to speak of, and many of the most sensitive (the poor, kids, poor families with kids) left without help.  We’ve seen the private market fail, in some cases spectacularly so, in recent years.  The mortgage/financial crisis comes to mind. The point is not which is better because these are not mutually exclusive.  The point is where do we turn when we have a problem? How do we approach solving society’s big problems? I’ll try to stick to the issue de jure.

For those who complain the uninsured or underinsured is a made up problem and the private market can handle it, I have a quick example to the contrary.  A young woman who wants to start a family requires special medication in order to have a healthy pregnancy. Fair enough.  Other than the pregnancy, there are no major health concerns and the medication is temporary just until the pregnancy is considered out of the danger zone (in other words, you can start telling your friends).  As a result of temporary medicine, this woman is uninsurable in the private market.  Yup, preexisting condition.  But she’s not taking the medicine anymore? Get this – she might get or choose to get pregnant again, and if that happens, she may need the medicine again, and the medicine is kinda expensive, but will be required by the doctor should a pregnancy occur, and therefore the private health insurance does not want to risk the cost and will not cover the woman.  Forget that chain of “ifs,” and just look at the decision itself.  An otherwise healthy woman who has a family, provides for them and creates stability both in the community and in the insurance pool is rejected because of the helpful (temporary) medicine used in the early stages of conception.  Makes sense from a business sense, right? Obamacare says this person must receive healthcare and cannot be turned down.  Am I saying that this hypothetical alone is sufficiently evidence that Obamacare was the right decision or policy choice? No. Not at all.  What I am saying is – challenge! If you argue that Obamacare is a bad idea, fine. What’s your idea?

My guess is that someone out there, some health insurance executive or some other experienced veteran of the healthcare industry already knows what the solution is (Obamacare or otherwise) but for a variety of issues – cost, political climate, feasibility, etc. – the solution is not possible right now.  Ok. Then, we’re back to square one.  Which brings me to my original point, this is serious business.  We cannot just expect that we can create an “exchange,” pressure insurance companies into it, throw together a website, and get the right balance of people in order to lower costs and achieve broad healthcare offerings.  It takes time and commitment.

Nothing in life worth doing is easy.

I always use this example when talking about religion, but it fits for public policy too.  Why should being religious or being devout be easy? Working out and staying in shape isn’t easy.  It’s tough. It requires discipline and dedication.  Education isn’t easy.  It’s long, expensive and challenging.  A college degree, graduate degree or professional school degree is an accomplishment and educated workers are compensated accordingly because it’s valuable.  If medical school were easy, how much would you trust your doctor?  Ok, ok, you get the point.  For some reason, we don’t hold politics in the same esteem.  We just assume that the President, Congress and others should just “get it done.”

We, the royal we, all of us, need to roll up our sleeves and get to work.  Similarly we need allow our politicians the same freedom.  When they don’t, we have to be paying enough attention to hold them accountable.  But that’s not gonna happen, is it?

Not only do we not hold them accountable when they shut down the government and spout useless rhetoric (see the Tea Party, Rep. John Boehner, Sen. Mitch McConnell), but we also do not understand when politicians do not take us (the voters) seriously.  They know that we’re not paying attention. There’s no incentive to work hard or get things right.  The only incentives are soundbytes and re-elections.  We don’t like when it requires hard work, when the solution is complex and when it will take years (a generation?) of discipline to correct systemic problems.  If we don’t have the discipline to pay attention and hold public leaders accountable, why should we expect they’d stay disciplined to address these problems?

My take is this is part of a larger cultural issue, of which I’m just as guilty, that we talk a good talk but we can’t walk the walk.  I’m doing it right now. I’ve written this blog post and that’s as far as my observation or passion will take me.  I’ve got a job, family and limited time (just like everyone else) so I cannot take on the Washington establishment. I cannot try to change people’s minds about what government can do and what leaders should be or could be.  Why? I’m having trouble figuring out how to get paid to do it.  Until I can, I’ve got a regular job to go to and try to make enough money to pay for the mortgage, health insurance and student loans.  There is no incentive for me to take this on.  I’m busy.  Is Obamacare working? Is it not working? Who cares? Nothing is gonna change anyway…right?

Look. I’m not trying to be a Debbie Downer here.  All I’m saying is that we have no one to blame (see Obama, see Congress) except ourselves.  We maintain a double standard for public policy choices. These unrealistic expectations make it seem that things which are true in our own lives (valuable achievements are difficult and take time/discipline) somehow are not true in Washington. Yet at the same time, we do not have time or resources to get involved.  Where does that leave us on Obamacare? on public policy generally? What does it mean for “big” problems facing our generation?

I don’t know.  I’m still working on that.  But if I figure it out, I’ll let you know.  Hopefully you’ll be able to spare a minute.

Rayguns don’t kill Zorbians, Zorbians kill Zorbians

Driving home tonight I heard a radio story about efforts by gun rights group to “make sure” that “we” don’t overreact and over regulate gun shops and gun sales.  And so, I decided to blog about it.

I know I haven’t written in a while – the combination of the bar exam, a new job and a pregnant wife. All good things.  And meanwhile, I thought I was missing out on commenting on this political story or that one.  On the election. Over before it started.  On the fiscal cliff. But as momma always says, if you don’t have anything nice to say…

And then…Newtown, Connecticut.  

Even though I felt compelled to write, I couldn’t.  It would have been a bad idea.  For starters, it hit really close to home.  Because we live about 15 minutes away from Newtown, almost everyone in our area had a connection to those taken at Sandy Hook Elementary School.  It was a bittersweet day.  A friend and co-worker’s daughter (a 3rd grader) was hidden by her gym teacher and survived the assault.   Our dear friends lost their nephew (a first grader).  So, it was not a good idea to enter the public discourse.

I think I’m passed that.  I think I have something different to say that is not reactionary and (hopefully) not personal.

Back to that NPR story and the idea that we need to “be careful” to avoid the over regulation of gun sales. I’m going to expand the idea (slightly) simply to make a point.  It’s a market. A market that sells legitimate sporting guns, semi-legitimate recreational guns and illegitimate assault weapons. We left regulation up to the market.  Minimal regulation based in a constitutional right, but nonetheless we committed to minimal market regulation. And the market failed.

The market failed to self regulate.  The market failed to work.  Supply and demand is way off. It’s laughable to me that after a major market failure, the market participants have the nerve to caution the rest of us about knee-jerk reactions and the “ignorance” of supporting gun control. 

Well, I have bad news for you. This is the world we live in. And there is no turning back. Ask Ron Paul.  As much as we want the libertarian world of personal freedoms and strict consequences for violating others’ rights, all we can do is influence the status quo.  The behemoth is lurching forward.  Practically speaking, we work within the system we’re given. There is no revolution.

In this system, when market actors prove that the market cannot regulate itself or the failure is so severe that the survival of a class or economy of people depends on emergency funding, the government steps in. We might not like it, but its reality.

Crude oil tankers. Autos. Investment banks. 19th Century steel mills.

Did the government solve everything? No. Of course, not.  But the government made a difference.  Government acted when no one else would (or could).  Regulation comes in two forms and both are reactive (but only one is retaliatory). The first is emergency stimulus-style spending that aids an entire industry.  The second is Dodd-Frank style oversight that penetrates an entire industry (for better or worse).  

Either way, it is a reaction to a crisis.  And we have a crisis. Gun violence.

The gun industry has proven that it lost control.

Tucson. Aurora. Newtown. Webster.

After a “market crash” like this, there will always be increased regulation.  The NRA (read, all pro-gun lobbyists), the Second Amendment Foundation, common sense American sportsmen and even the (slightly misinterpreted) Second Amendment itself are not enough to stop the tide.  The financial industry, the true market (itself), could not win a deregulation argument in the face of a breach of the public trust.

This is not a liberal agenda.  This is the world we live in.  In the days after the Newtown elementary school shooting, I heard more than one commentator (and some friends) claim that we live in a violent world and nothing we can regulate will stop true evil.  This claim – there is no stopping truly determined child killers – is true (in some sense) but is disingenuous.  We can slow them down, we can make their “goal” much more difficult.  Likewise, I would say, this is the world we live in.  The government is going to get involved in industries that cause (or at least don’t stop) major crises.  There’s nothing we can do.  This is the price of major societal failure. 

We do not have to wait to decide what to do about guns.  We don’t have allow a “cooling off” period.  There was no cooling off period as GM was going out of business.  There was no cooling off period during the bank bailouts and Dodd-Frank negotiations.  And there is no cooling off period today.  (And by the by, when is the last time cooling off worked?)

I know the response to this idea is going to be some variation on “two wrongs don’t make a right.” Government overregulation in one market doesn’t justify the same in another.  I disagree.  This. Is. What. We. Do.

Like it or not, the only legitimate response we have is to add layers of bureaucracy.  Make it more difficult to evade background checks.  Make it harder to get a gun. How? Paperwork. Our answer to everything.

Some people (members of the NRA) don’t believe in a world where background checks and government systems can keep the mentally ill from obtaining dangerous firearms.  Some people (many people who aren’t members of the NRA) don’t believe in a world where good guys with guns have safe, successful shootouts with bad guys with guns and no one except the bad guy gets hurt. So, if I had to err on the side of one imaginary world or the other, I’ll take my chances with government regulation.

We had a major failure, we have a crisis and now we will get government involvement in the market.  If you didn’t want the government to get involved, everyone should have done a better job when they (we) had the chance.  Now, it’s too late. 

And our only savior is a good guy with paperwork (sorry, I couldn’t resist).

 

Up is Down, Down is Up: Romney is Liberal

There’s something weird going on in politics this time around and its been nagging me for a few weeks.  Since the conventions I’ve been trying to articulate exactly what’s been bothering me and I think Mitt Romney stumbled into it or at least 47% of it.  When the video surfaced of Romney at a May 2012 fundraiser talking about “victims” and “dependents” and how many people may or may not be off-limits to him, he also revealed a subtext that has flipped the two political parties on their heads.

Republicans are advocates of change.

Granted, Romney was not saying he thought more of the 47% should pay their “fair share.” Perish the thought.  No.  Romney was saying 

(or wasn’t saying) that 47% of the people who don’t pay personal income tax have no vested interest in lower taxes.  This was made even clearer by a witty New Yorker blog post thoughtfully sent to the Pickle by a die-hard reader (thanks, TBS).  The author argues that its not so much that Romney was wrong as it is he didn’t make the whole point.  The lower taxes argument does not mean a whole lot to people who do not pay taxes.  Obama’s response – make the millionaires pay their “fair share.”

Essentially, let the Bush tax cuts expires and keep everything else pretty much the same.

In 2008, Barack Obama ran on “change.”  He meant – change Washington, change politics, and change hearts and minds.  Classic Democratic rhetoric.  Apparently he’s realized that it’s difficult to change to Washington from the inside.  So, what’s he advocating? Slow, reasonable and practical growth.

What’s Romney pushing? Repeal, overturn, reform and redo. 

If you define “liberal” and “conservative” as “demanding change” and “maintaining the status quo,” I would argue that Obama is conservative and Romney is liberal.

Yeah, Mitt Romney.  Liberal.  I know.  It’s weird, right?  I mean, he was governor of Massachusetts but still, he’s as vanilla as they come.  And yet, he is the candidate trying to convince Americans to reverse progress, upend government programs and agencies, repeal legislation and let American companies fail in order to restore the market balance. 

In many ways, Romney is risky.

Romney is not interested in stability or consistency.  

Romney is liberal.  Change.  Kinda ironic, isn’t it?

Obama, on the other hand, is making the level-headed appeal for rationality, common sense and normalcy.  Obama is conservative by nature.  Despite what you might hear at a local Tea Party rally, Obama is moderate.

We used to think about liberal and conservative in terms of how much government was involved in policy choices.  This is an old and out-of-date definition.  The government is everywhere and in everything.  Romney is not gonna change that.  Romney is government.  He lived it in Massachusetts and he’ll embrace the role of government should he ever assume Highest Office.  

The true definition of liberal and conservative should be in terms of risk vs. stability.  How much risk is a candidate willing to take? How turbulent to the economy and other areas will a candidate’s policies be?

In that context, I would argue that the Republicans have become the rowdy activists and Democrats the somber wonks.

Republicans are looking to rock the boat this election.  Voter ID laws.  Women’s rights.  Deregulation.  Climate denial.  I’m sure Democrats will read this and immediately point to the fact that Republicans are conservative because they are trying to take the country back to the 18^th Century.  But that’s not what I’m saying.  It’s clear that Dems still value progress on social issues.  No question.  But more and more, social issues are not dominating elections the way they were in the late 80s and 90s. 

Instead, millennials (and everyone outside the top tax bracket) are increasingly voting on economic and fiscal issues.  Employment.  Taxes.  Job creation.  Cost of living.  Energy. 

I voted for President Obama in 2008 and my expectations were high for what an Obama Administration would mean for the political climate in this country.  In that regard, I was wrong.  President Obama did not fundamentally change how we interact with our government or politics.  He just didn’t.   From where I sit, he made emergency decisions in 2009-2010 to try to salvage the autos and banks.  Besides political risks on health care, he played it right down the middle.  Even health care wasn’t that risky, Massachusetts had already gone there!

So what?

I don’t know.  And that’s the truth.  I don’t think defining Romney as an activity or Obama as a moderate is going to change anyone’s vote.  I don’t think the term liberal really even means change anymore.  It means Left, as in politically left of center. Similarly, conservative means traditionalor small government. It does not really mean status quo.

What I do think is that Obama is safer than Romney.  I know that flies in the face of many voters, whether in the 47% or not, that believe Obama is the dangerous candidate. 

What would Obama “do” in a second term?  What’s he capable of?

I think those sentiments are ridiculous.  Fundamentally, I think its Romney who wants to take risks.  He’s the investor.  The venture capitalist.  I know his speeches are filled with traditional American values.  But he is looking to halt the slow creep of the government and make dramatic and dynamic changes to the way we do business and perhaps live.  That sounds liberal to me.

Some might read this as a reverse endorsement of Romney/Ryan.  I assure you that’s not how it was intended but then again, I didn’t build it.

Why hasn’t anyone called Mitt Romney the Antichrist?

In campaign for the Presidency in 2008, I spoke with many evangelical Christians and conservative Republican voters in Central PA.  Having grown up in a Congressional district where the Republican candidate often won 90+% of the vote, it was not surprising that then-Senator Barack Obama was not popular.  In fact, many voters were downright scared.  Most Republicans were scared of his progressive message and his potential.  A few brought up Obama’s meteoric rise to fame, his (then) somewhat confusing background and his ability to excite large groups of people.  A few of those individuals even mentioned similarities that his rise and personality could have with certain passages from Revelation in the Bible about the Antichrist.  Many interpretations of Revelation say the Antichrist will be presented to the world as a public figure who comes in the name of peace and unites the peoples of the world in harmony (and possibly currency) before revealing evil intentions.

All that to say – Obama’s charisma, connection with people and reliance on government brought out fears of what is essentially the fundamental “bad guy” of the New Testament.  In 2012, no one is calling Obama the Antichrist.  In fact, no one is even calling him a socialist much anymore.  I’m not sure Obama changed all that much.  Instead, voters have gotten to know him better and honestly, he hasn’t been as unifying and harmonizing as his ’08 campaign implied.

But when watching the Republican National Convention this week, my wife and I heard a commentator say that Rick Santorum was speaking to let evangelicals and Catholics know that it was safe to vote for Mitt Romney.  Safe? Safe?!?!?! My reaction was to laugh.  Mitt Romney is one of the safest (read, most harmless) candidates in a long time.  What the commentator really meant was that social conservatives should not worry about Romney’s religion.  Apparently among the coded messages at the RNC was that social conservatives should accept/welcome Mormons into the fold.

I immediately thought back to 2008.  If Obama was potentially the Antichrist for believing too strongly in government and showing the potential to harmonize many people in America and abroad, why aren’t these same people saying similar things about Mitt Romney?  Obama’s background seems more public (and accessible) than the money and power controlling the Mormon church.  I don’t know much about the internal politics of the Mormon church, so I could be off-base, but it seems to me at least, like the public leadership of the Mormon church plays it closer to the vest, so to speak, than those leading evangelical and Catholic institutions.

Yet, we heard from Rick Santorum that it’s a non-issue.

In reality, this blog post and Mitt’s problem has nothing to do with religion.  No one is saying anything about Mitt Romney being the Antichrist because he’s not interesting or charismatic enough to fit the mold even if you stretch the interpretations.  No rise to power – he’s been running for President as long as Suri Cruise has been alive (maybe longer).  He’s not coming in peace – granted, he’s not coming in the name of war either but the campaign is not a positive one. He’s not harmonizing – Romney’s campaign has been just the opposite actually.

It would almost be better for Mitt Romney if there were whispers of his being the Antichrist because it would mean that people can see his charisma, potential and power.

I’d like to think these whispers do not exist because people are becoming more familiar with the 24/7 cable news cycle and we no longer jump off the handle with wild comparisons anytime a bright, young Senator runs for President.  But we all know that’s not true.  We love hyperbole and we love drama.

So, it must be that Mitt is just not that interesting.

What I cannot figure out is whether this is good or bad.  On one hand, it’s been a turbulent 10 years and perhaps uninteresting is what this country needs for 4 years.  On the other hand, uninteresting does not inspire people, does not impose political will and does not win votes.  And yet, with his choice of Paul Ryan as VP and his essentially having the stage for 4 nights this week, Romney seems to be gaining momentum.

Ultimately I think Romney still has not overcome his safe approach.  He’s unwilling to take chances…he’s unwilling to take a stand.  Mitt Romney would benefit by becoming more personal and more dangerous.  In order to beat the incumbent, a presidential candidate has to overcome major disadvantages particularly that the opponent is already the President of the United States.  It takes a special candidate and some help from the economy/world events.  Reagan and Clinton has both of these in common.  Both candidates possessed incredible personal charisma and both entered the race during times of economic struggle. Romney has the economic struggle piece well in hand but, until now, has not connected with voters.

I didn’t see all of Thursday’s speech yet.  The parts I have seen left a little to be desired.  It was a good speech.  It wasn’t a great speech.  Romney will have every opportunity to build a narrative over the next two months that brings in voters and energizes the American people.  Maybe he’s capable of this.  Maybe his campaign is, as a good friend of mine would say, “a slow burn.”

But I don’t see it.  I don’t see this election getting any closer than it is right now.  Romney chose Ryan.  Romney had the stage.  And he did alright.  Unfortunately for him, ok isn’t good enough in this political climate if you’re attempting to unseat an incumbent.

Can “a slow burn” win my vote? Absolutely.  But in this case, I still haven’t seen Mitt’s Presidential Moment.  I haven’t seen him say anything particularly interesting.  Safe, steady and lower taxes.  I get it but he hasn’t won my vote.

The campaign begins in full force on Tuesday.  The convention is over.  The summer is over. Kids are going back to school.  People are starting to pay attention.  Starting Tuesday Mitt needs to parlay this momentum into votes.

No one is going to mistake Mitt Romney for the Antichrist but he could make things a lot more interesting by making himself a little more interesting.

Senator Lugar, You Said It.

For the first time in about 3 years, I sat down at my laptop this morning and did not have anything law school-related to work on.  No internship applications, no cases to read, no papers to write.  I thought it would be a great opportunity to blog a little. What better to write about than last night’s votes in North Carolina and Indiana.  The two leading headlines – NC voters approving a state constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and long-time Senator Dick Lugar losing his primary to no name state official.

The first issue requires less attention than even I will pay.  I mean, if I was looking for “a pickle” in the proposed North Carolina amendment, I would say that it shows the tension between individual states and the country.  This country was designed to allow states to be “laboratories of public policy” as one Supreme Court justice put it.  If that’s the case, we have to accept it when a state, here or there, goes off on a public policy goose chase.  We certainly don’t have to praise NC for proposing and passing this but we don’t have to view it as the downfall of Western liberal thought either.  Many on Twitter or Facebook are saying hurtful and inappropriate things about North Carolinians, others are more appropriately describing themselves as “disappointed,” and still others have decided to just ignore the uncomfortable issue altogether.  The bottom line for The Political Pickle is – is this the best way to be doing this?

We will agree that there are major disagreements between the two major parties about gay marriage.  No question.  I would say moderates and independents lean to the Democrats on this issue.  So, on the gay marriage issue, there are two main camps roughly represented by the two main parties.  Supporters of gay marriage believe its a civil rights issue and that doesn’t leave room for debate.  Similarly, opponents of gay marriage believe it is a moral issue and that doesn’t leave much room for compromise.  So, what do we do? While we wait for a national majority of people to push the cultural tied one way or the other, we let states have their day.  In Connecticut, where I write this blog, gay marriage is legal.  North Carolina has gone the other way.  And, based on how we make law and policy in this country, we just have to deal with it.  It’s kinda like a parent who knows that their child is going to get hurt but allows them to make a mistake or endure bad news.  “It’s for your own good.”  We have a little federalist tough love going on.  We love this country enough that we watch as states make bad decisions.

As a lawyer, though, I cannot help thinking of both sides of the argument.  Yes, on one hand, we stand by and allow states their sovereignty, even celebrate the “laboratory theory” of public policy.  On the other hand, states cannot go too far (see the Deep South in the 1950s and 60s).  So, however you feel about the legal status of same-sex couples and their right to be married, remember that states can only go so far. I don’t think North Carolina is going about this the right way, but I also think we have to swallow it until such time as minds can be changed or democratic majorities can be organized.

For a party that believes in small government and individual rights, this is a funny issue to make a national story.  What’s more personal than marriage? But, I digress, my intention wasn’t to try to air out all the conceivable attacks and defenses of North Carolina’s amendment.  My intention was that even if we think it’s wrong and/or the wrong way to go about governing, the silver lining is that states are wrong all the time.  That’s what makes them states and that’s eventually what sparks national majorities to make progress.  Unfortunately for some of the citizens of North Carolina, this is how we make progress.  One step back, two steps forward.

In related news, I thought that Senator Lugar’s concession speech and the corresponding coverage of it this morning speaks exactly to this point.  Senator Lugar a known moderate, bi-partisan and practical politician was upset in his state’s primary last night by the State Treasurer Richard Mourdock.  Sidenote:  An impressive jump to be sure –   state treasurer to United States Senator.  Nevertheless, Mourdock’s campaign promised “stand-your-ground confrontation” on Republican orthodoxy.  And won.   I guess we’ll have to start calling that “stand your ground”  legislating.

Oddly appropriate.

While that sounds great on the campaign trail, Lugar makes an even more important point about reality.  “This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve,” said Lugar.

I had so much to say on this race and this whole idea of “compromise” being a dirty word.  But Senator Lugar already said.  Last night.  And better than I could have.

Here’s more from CNN’s coverage:

“Parties don’t succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.”

And he didn’t stop there.

His stinging words about today’s divisive politics were reminiscent of moderate Republican Senator Olympia Snowe’s open disgust for what the process has become when she announced she was retiring.

“I don’t remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc,” said Lugar.”

I’ll say this.  Lugar is not without fault.  He’s been in the Senate for 36 years.  36 years! That is a long time to have 1 job and sometimes I think that does put you out-of-touch with voters.  So, I’m not writing a defense of incumbents or a pity party for Dick Lugar.  At the same time, he lost for being reasonable and trying to get things done in Washington.  And that rubs me the wrong way.  Because, again, as the Senator himself said, ideology cannot be a politician’s only quality.

“Ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents,” he said.

Senator Lugar is out and only time will tell if the next Senator from Indiana will be successful in our most prestigious legislative body.  Indiana had two, reasonable and widely-liked Senators not to mention that both were willing to reach across the isle in order to see legislation through to law.  Senators Bayh and Lugar have both been ousted in the last 2 Senatorial election cycles by more conservative right-wing candidates.  Indiana is embracing political orthodoxy rather than practicality.  Though I’ve always encouraged practicality over ideology, this is the political culture we live in and I’m not sure there’s any changing it at this point.  Extremist win and moderates are beatable.

Which is fine, we just cannot expect anything to change.  Don’t expect Washington to fix anything when each side has decided to “stand-its-ground” and anything in between is considered weak and politically dangerous.  The good news is that if anything does get through Congress and is signed by the President, it can be challenged as unconstitutional and spend several years reaching the Supreme Court.  In this way, we have an extra layer of protection to make sure nothing gets done.  And I’m not really even talking about healthcare, although I do think something needed to be done there.  And I’m not talking about social issues either which I would prefer that the US Senate isn’t spending valuable time debating to begin with.

I’m worried about financial issues, industrial issues, technological issues and environmental issues.  Those things that supersede the “states as laboratories” model.  National issues that require national attention.  Debt. Deficits. Trade. Security.  We’re going no where fast and we’re ousting the few people who dedicated their lives to trying to assist progress.

Senator Lugar made a career of putting people and progress over politics.  I don’t feel bad for him, he had his 36 years but I do worry about the message we’re sending to our politicians and our perspective politicians.  As CNN wrote, “Not always politically expedient or strategically smart, but, from his perspective, principled.” Don’t we want more Lugars and less Mourdocks? I guess not.  At least in Indiana…and North Carolina.