Maureen Dowd pines for the "good old days"

So Maureen Dowd is depressed and cynical. What's new? You can read BooMan's total take-down of her cynicism here. But he skipped over something she said that made me literally do a double-take.

We’re a little bit scared of our own shadow. And, sadly, we see ourselves as a people who can never understand one another. We’ve given up on the notion that we can cohere, even though the founders forged America by holding together people with deep differences.

What in holy hell is she talking about? Those "deep differences" our founders held together were the ones between white land-owning males. Meanwhile, our black and brown neighbors were subjected to slavery and genocide while we claimed Manifest Destiny over the continent. Our founders showed precious little interest in cohering with folks who weren't just like them.

I'm pretty sure Maureen Dowd knows this history. But it is so typical of the role white privilege plays in our minds that a knowing of facts is not enough to challenge the conclusions we reach based on the myths we've come to believe.

Its all a reminder to me about why so much of white America (both conservative and liberal) are in the midst of a giant freak-out these days - especially those in the baby boomer age group. We were nurtured on the idea of an America that ruled the world after WWII and emerged believing that Ozzie and Harriet were the definition of life in America. Sure, we occasionally heard about the injustices black and brown people faced. And we watched our country struggle through the Civil Rights Movement, Viet Nam and Watergate. But the basic contract of white men in charge of America and America in charge of the world remained intact. That myth is now under assault and an awful lot of folks are losing their g-d minds about it.

In the end, what Dowd and so many others are depressed about is the death of normal.

America will soon belong to the men and women — white and black and Latino and Asian, Christian and Jew and Muslim and atheist, gay and straight — who can walk into a room and accept with real comfort the sensation that they are in a world of certain difference, that there are no real majorities, only pluralities and coalitions. The America in which it was otherwise is dying, thank god, and those who relied on entitlement and division to command power will either be obliged to accept the changes, or retreat to the gated communities from which they wish to wax nostalgic and brood on political irrelevance...

Hard times are still to come for all of us. Rear guard actions will be fought at every political crossroad. But make no mistake: Change is a motherfucker when you run from it...

We are all the other now, in some sense. Special interests? That term has no more meaning in the New America. We are all — all of us, every last American, even the whitest of white guys — special interests. And now, normal isn’t white or straight or Christian. There is no normal. That word, too, means less with every moment. And those who continue to argue for such retrograde notions as a political reality will become less germane and more ridiculous with every passing year.

R.I.P. normal. Its going to take the Maureen Dowd's of the world a while to adjust. In the meantime, a column like this is a perfect example of her waxing nostalgic and brooding on her own political irrelevance.

My letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama,

When you visited my home state of Minnesota a few days ago, you said that the letter you received from Rebekah was a "statement of hope." That inspired me. I've been thinking about writing to you for a long time now. I finally decided to do that as my own statement of hope.

I grew up being interested in politics. As far as I can remember, what first awakened that was President John F. Kennedy's challenge, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." That struck a chord deep inside me. I've always been pretty independent, so I don't tend to need much from anyone...much less my government. But I've also always known that I have something to give. It wasn't often that potential was called upon. That's why I resonated so profoundly with President Kennedy's words. They hit on a different kind of need. The one you often talk about when you mention your own desire to be part of something larger than yourself.

In subsequent years, what I heard most from politicians who were running for office was what they could do for me. That message made me feel like a victim rather than a participant. And so I'd always tune it out and move on. By the time you announced your candidacy for President, I'd pretty much given up hope of ever really being inspired again. I knew that I needed to vote - that was the least I could do. But it seemed like politics was a game being played by the rich and powerful in Washington. The deck seemed stacked against anyone like me having a real role to play.

It was when I heard about "Camp Obama" that I began to notice that something was different about your campaign. So I started to pay attention. To make a long story short, I got inspired back then and have been on a roll ever since.

Your speech at the 2012 Democratic Convention struck that same chord with me that I heard from President Kennedy.

We, the people — recognize that we have responsibilities as well as rights; that our destinies are bound together; that a freedom which asks only, what's in it for me, a freedom without a commitment to others, a freedom without love or charity or duty or patriotism, is unworthy of our founding ideals, and those who died in their defense.

As citizens, we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It's about what can be done by us, together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government. That's what we believe.

I have to admit that as I've watched you over these last few years there are times that I've cringed at the level of trust you are willing to place in the American people. Seeing the ugliness of those who are driven by fear and rage, I often feel that trust is unwarranted. But then I have to ask myself, "what is the alternative?" A true embrace of our democratic ideals means we have no other choice.

Perhaps you saw what Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote back in 2008 shortly after your election about how your faith in the American people places you squarley in the footsteps of those who took the same risk.

Here is where Barack Obama and the civil rights leaders of old are joined -- in a shocking, almost certifiable faith in humanity, something that subsequent generations lost. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. may have led African Americans out of segregation, and he may have cured incalculable numbers of white racists, but more than all that, he believed that the lion's share of the population of this country would not support the rights of thugs to pummel people who just wanted to cross a bridge. King believed in white people, and when I was a younger, more callow man, that belief made me suck my teeth. I saw it as weakness and cowardice, a lack of faith in his own. But it was the opposite. King's belief in white people was the ultimate show of strength: He was willing to give his life on a bet that they were no different from the people who lived next door.

As I come to the end of writing, I can see more clearly why you called doing so a statement of hope. My original intention was to tell you what your leadership has meant to me. In the process I've reminded myself to live up to my own ideals.

My own trust in the American people tells me that I'm not the only one who is stirred by your call to citizenship. Realizing "what can be done by us, together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government" strikes a longing deep in many of us to be active participants rather than simply passive recipients. I wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for igniting that passion in my spirit once again.

I'll always have your back.

Sincerely,
Nancy LeTourneau

Photo of the Day: My Girl

The GOP's problem is different than the one Clinton faced in 1992

John Harwood has an interesting column in which he compares the problem the Republicans face in taking back the White House to what Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council did in 1992. As BooMan points out though, Harwood basically talked to a couple of Washington insiders who suggested that a Republican candidate can simply appease the lunatics in the primaries and change course in the general election. Isn't that what Romney tried to do in 2012? Anyone remember Romnesia?

But the truth is that Democrats faced a totally different kind of problem in 1992. At that point, the Republicans were sweeping in corporate campaign dollars and the DLC was created to go after some of that money. At first, they were pretty inept at it - fueling a few scandals during Clinton's first term (i.e., Lincoln bedroom). But eventually they got it down. Then along came Barack Obama. He shattered the whole premise by out-raising the Clinton machine via small donors (with a BIG assist from developing technology). Now grassroots organizing is taking off and we see that big corporate money isn't always the deciding factor in either the Democratic or Republican party.

I would suggest that the challenge the Republicans face today is unique to this era. It has been created by three factors. First of all, the Bush/Cheney years decimated support for their bread-and-butter policies. Whether we're talking interventionist military adventures abroad or deregulation at home, it all ended in disaster. Americans tend to have short memories, but between Iraq and the Great Recession, we haven't totally forgotten it all yet.

Secondly, the GOP's embrace of obstruction as a primary strategy against President Obama means that they have ceded all of the pragmatic middle ground to him. That's why they have proposed no alternatives to Obamacare, immigration reform, or climate change. Anything that would actually work would wind up mirroring the President's proposals. At this point, to moderate toward the middle is to join forces with the Kenyan soshulist. So that's not going to happen.

Finally - and perhaps most importantly - is the role played by conservative media. Personalities like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly carry a lot more weight with Republican voters than their candidates do. The day those folks quit ginning up the rage and start talking about moderation is the day they lose their ratings. Not likely.

In the end, the Republicans are in a bit of a pickle (its actually much more serious than that - but I like the phrase). The more they pursue policies that satisfy their base, the more voters they lose. Current demographics suggest its only going to get worse for them. I don't know how all this ends. I don't think anyone does. But hang on to your hats, its likely to get worse before it gets better.

Let's be clear: SCOTUS ruling is about contraception, not abortion

When Catholic bishops objected to the Obamacare mandate that required employers to include contraception in their health insurance plans, the lines were clear. Regardless of the fact that most Catholics use birth control, the church has a strong position against it.

But that was not the case that Hobby Lobby made to the Supreme Court. They were clear that they have no religious objection to birth control in general - just four kinds (two "morning after pills" and 2 IUD's). Their contention is that these birth control methods work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus and are therefore abortifacients.

The truth is that science is never going to answer the question of when "life" begins. That one is always going to be left to us as human beings to struggle with. In those instances, many people turn to their religion. For the owners of Hobby Lobby, their belief is that life starts the moment an egg is fertilized. I don't agree with that conclusion, but I support their right to that belief and would hope that they would support my right to decide differently.

But ultimately those differences should never have come into play in the recent SCOTUS decision. That's because the scientific consensus is that the "morning after pills" (Plan B and Ella) do NOT work by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus (the science on IUD's is not as conclusive). The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetric's statement on this was unequivocal:

LNG ECPs [Plan B and Ella] do not interrupt a pregnancy (by any definition of the beginning of pregnancy). However, LNG ECPs can prevent abortions by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

So what are we to make of the fact that Hobby Lobby included these two forms of contraception in their case and that 5 Supreme Court Justices validated their claims?

In his opinion, Alito contends that these four contraception methods "may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus." He does not cite any science to back this up.

There are only two possible answers to that question. Either this is another example of a rejection of science or it is an assault on women's right to access contraception in general. The subsequent Supreme Court ruling seems to indicate the latter.

There are many areas of the Hobby Lobby (and now Wheaton College) case that are open to discussion. For example, when does "life" begin? When does pregnancy begin? Do the rights of corporations trump the rights of workers? But the one thing we should all be able to agree on is demonstrated science. Regardless of your position on the other questions, that is where the Court's decision is an abomination.

The bear is loose!

I see that Charles Blow has written what I've been thinking about for the last few days.

The president is growing hostile to being held hostage — both by the very insular nature of the presidency itself, and by the more stultifying intransigence of Congress.

During a walk a few weeks ago from the White House to the Interior Department, the president proclaimed, “The bear is loose.”

At a Minneapolis town hall last week, Obama said: “With Secret Service, I always tease them, I’m like a caged bear and sometimes I break loose.”

That, however, is the lighter side of things, the side in which the grizzly is merely grumpy because he’s feeling a bit stir-crazy. 

But there is the other, more frustrating, and ultimately more consequential side, in which the president is caught in the jaws of a legislative trap, unable to move the country forward because a fraction of it insists on holding him back.

Anyone else notice that President Obama is looking pretty feisty lately? Perhaps he's beginning to feel that the end of his term is nigh and is ready to go all YOLO on us ("carpe diem" for us older folks).

In addition to the examples Blow highlights, the President let loose on Republican obstruction last week after saying this:

I’m supposed to be politic about how I say things -- but I’m finding lately that I just want to say what’s on my mind.

Go ahead then...  :-)

In homage to "throw back Thursday," the President's team posted this on Facebook and twitter today:

Throwback to last week when a woman—not her boss—made her own decisions about her health care. #TBT pic.twitter.com/xmQ5e7DFmW
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) July 3, 2014

Not holding back one little bit, are they?

Of course none of this will change the dynamics of Republican obstruction. If anything, it will only up the volume of their ongoing freak-out. But at this point President Obama has nothing to lose. He spent years bending over backward trying to work with them and has gotten zero cooperation from them. So now is a good time to simply say what's on his mind.

I'm thinking these last two years could get REAL interesting.

Minnesota: A state that works...again

A little over forty years ago TIME magazine published an article titled Minnesota: A state that works. Some recent statistics show that is once again true.

• Twin Cities unemployment rate is 4% - the lowest for a metropolitan area in the country
• Rainy day reserve funds at $811 million - the largest in the state's history
• Thanks to Obamacare, 95% of state residents are insured
• Minnesota is ranked as one of the least corrupt states in the country

Republicans are always telling us that we should look to the states for leadership and innovation. Given that Minnesota has a Democratic governor and state legislature, the results might not provide them with the evidence they're looking for. As Republican governors/legislatures (like Sam Brownback in Kansas) are becoming more extreme, we're seeing mounting evidence around the country that Democratic policies work and Republican efforts are failing miserably.

A lot of us complain pretty regularly about the weather up here in the tundra. But there's a reason why so many of us are fiercely loyal to this state. Stuff works up here ;-)