Here's your choice

It looks like the primary results we'll see in South Carolina this week will confirm that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for president this year. Assuming that is true, we'll have a stark choice for American voters between the competing visions he and President Obama have for our country.

In case you haven't noticed, Romney is developing a theme for his candidacy that describes this election as a battle for the "soul of America." So lets look at what he means by that.

Romney asserts that President Obama wants to “fundamentally transform America,” turning the country “into a European-style entitlement society.” In fact, Romney and his Republican presidential rivals have a far more radical transformation in mind. They envision a dramatically shrunken federal government and a dangerously unraveled social safety net...

Consider Romney’s answer to a question at the last debate about the safety net in an age of austerity:

“Well, what we don’t need is to have a federal government saying we’re going to solve all the problems of poverty across the entire country, because what it means to be poor in Massachusetts is different than Montana and Mississippi and other places in the country,” Romney said.

“And that’s why these programs, all these federal programs that are bundled to help people and make sure we have a safety net, need to be brought together and sent back to the states. And let states that are closest to the needs of their own people craft the programs that are able to deal with the needs of those folks.”

Romney went on to tick off specific programs: food stamps, housing vouchers, Medicaid, emergency heating assistance.

“What unfortunately happens is, with all the multiplicity of federal programs, you have massive overhead with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs. Very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them,” Romney added.

First of all, on the issue of administrative overhead, Romney is just plain wrong (as is so often his wont). Here are the facts in graph form from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.



Secondly, anyone paying the least bit of attention over the last 50 years or so hears the dog whistles present in talk about "sending programs back to the states." What it means is killing those programs - especially in an era where most states can't even financially meet their current obligations.

And what would that mean for Americans who are struggling today? Interestingly enough, its the Wall Street Journal that recently reported that almost half of U.S. households receive federal government benefits...48.6%. That includes entitlements, but the highest percentage (34.4%) include means tested programs like Medicaid, food stamps and housing assistance.

Yes, in these days when the numbers of people living in poverty are soaring and the middle class is struggling simply to stay afloat, Mitt Romney is all about tossing them completely overboard. And that doesn't even get to the part where he wants to raise their taxes while giving he and his 1% buddies a tax break.

So that's what Romney thinks is the soul of America. Just ponder that for a moment.

I'll simply end with a small clip about President Obama's vision - which is in sharp contrast.

I'll Take You There

I don't know where it is these girls are going. But wherever it is...that's where I wanna be!

Did you see this?

The last time President Obama joked about long form birth certificates (White House Correspondent's Dinner) - it was not a good time to be a terrorist leader.

Just sayin...

;-)

Making mere mortals into gods

Yesterday Dan Gillmor tweeted this.

It's pretty obvious that if Martin Luther King were alive today, he'd be one of Barack Obama's fiercest critics on all kinds of issues

The implication (as subsequent tweets demonstrate) is, of course, that President Obama would come up wanting under the fierce criticism of Martin Luther King.

That sparked quite a discussion on twitter and if you're interested you can view the whole thing here.

In similar fashion, Glenn Greenwald's column yesterday used Martin Luther King's views about Viet Nam to critique the current administration on civil liberties.

While I revere the life, work and teaching of Martin Luther King (and personally feel like I have a LONG way to go to realize them in my own life), the truth is that these kinds of arguments make me very uncomfortable...to say the least.

As one who grew up with the teachings of fundamentalist christianity, I wrestled long and hard to reject the idea that words written over 2000 years ago and eventually became the Bible are inerrant. Similarly, many brought up in the Catholic faith have the same struggle with the idea of the Pope being inerrant in his teachings. And any liberal knows that one of our biggest battles with the right is over their "strict constructionist" view of our constitution.

What all three of these examples teach us is that, while words written/spoken in a particular time and place may have meaning, they are all written/spoken by mere mortals who sometimes get things wrong.

And so while each of us has the freedom to accept/reject what they have to say as guidelines for our own lives, to make gods of their utterances is folly when grappling with the world as it presents itself to us right now. My experience is that failing to do so absolves us of wrestling with difficult questions and simply provides pat answers to morally challenging situations.

The other issue I have with using Martin Luther King's legacy this way is that he was a mere 39 years old when he was assassinated. While it may be interesting to ponder how he would have developed personally over time if he had been allowed to live, its folly to assume we know.

I am now a mere 19 years older that King was when he died. As I look back on those years its easy to see how I've changed. Life has a way of doing that to you. And it would have been true of King as well. We need to grant his legacy the reality of that truth.

There are many of us who wish profoundly that he could have lived to see the first African American elected president. But we know that that is a wish for the world as we want it to be and not the reality of how it actually is.

The fact is that President Obama has wrestled with King's legacy...how his role and the times are different. We know a bit about that based on his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech.

We must begin by acknowledging the hard truth: We will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. There will be times when nations -- acting individually or in concert -- will find the use of force not only necessary but morally justified.

I make this statement mindful of what Martin Luther King Jr. said in this same ceremony years ago: "Violence never brings permanent peace. It solves no social problem: it merely creates new and more complicated ones." As someone who stands here as a direct consequence of Dr. King's life work, I am living testimony to the moral force of non-violence. I know there's nothing weak -- nothing passive -- nothing naïve -- in the creed and lives of Gandhi and King.

But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people.

We should all follow his example. That would mean learning everything we can from the man Martin Luther King - including his struggles, failures and triumphs - and then taking that knowledge to wrestle with the very real challenges we face in our own life and times today.

King doesn't have all the answers for us. We have to find those ourselves.

Sullivan's version of "conciliatory rhetoric as ruthless strategy"

Andrew Sullivan's cover story in Newsweek magazine is getting a lot of reaction and commentary today. Of course, he's mostly saying things that those of us in the pragmatic progressive blogosphere have been saying all along.

Anyone who has been reading here for awhile knows that one of my constant themes has been to talk about President Obama's conciliatory rhetoric as ruthless strategy. And so for me, the part of Sullivan's article that stood out was this:

And what have we seen? A recurring pattern. To use the terms Obama first employed in his inaugural address: the president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.

Sound familiar?

Mark Schmitt gets credit for nailing it way back in September 2007 when discussing Obama's theory of change.

The reason the conservative power structure has been so dangerous, and is especially dangerous in opposition, is that it can operate almost entirely on bad faith. It thrives on protest, complaint, fear: higher taxes, you won't be able to choose your doctor, liberals coddle terrorists, etc. One way to deal with that kind of bad-faith opposition is to draw the person in, treat them as if they were operating in good faith, and draw them into a conversation about how they actually would solve the problem. If they have nothing, it shows. And that's not a tactic of bipartisan Washington idealists -- it's a hard-nosed tactic of community organizers, who are acutely aware of power and conflict.

And here's Jonathan Chait talking about "the Obama method" when it comes to dealing with Iran back in July 2009.

This is a perfect summation of Obama's strategy. It does not presuppose that his adversaries are people of goodwill who can be reasoned with. Rather, it assumes that, by demonstrating his own goodwill and interest in accord, Obama can win over a portion of his adversaries' constituents as well as third parties. Obama thinks he can move moderate Muslim opinion, pressure bad actors like Iran to negotiate, and, if Iran fails to comply, encourage other countries to isolate it. The strategy works whether or not Iran makes a reasonable agreement.

He sums it up this way:

This apparent paradox is one reason Obama's political identity has eluded easy definition. On the one hand, you have a disciple of the radical community organizer Saul Alinsky turned ruthless Chicago politician. On the other hand, there is the conciliatory post-partisan idealist. The mistake here is in thinking of these two notions as opposing poles. In reality it's all the same thing. Obama's defining political trait is the belief that conciliatory rhetoric is a ruthless strategy.

(Emphasis mine)

I can only hope that with the publication of Sullivan's article and the attention its getting, more people will come to understand that this is what has been going on all along.

Attorney General Eric Holder's speech in Columbia, South Carolina

As I mentioned yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder stepped into the heart of the fire to give a speech about voting rights in Columbia, South Carolina on this day celebrating the life and work of Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.

He began by reminding us of the tenacity of the one we honor today.

Throughout his life, Dr. King spoke often of the “fierce urgency of now.” When he saw injustice in the world, he felt a need to act – and to do so immediately, purposefully, and collaboratively. When he looked upon his nation, he saw – not only great challenges, but also extraordinary opportunities. He saw infinite possibilities. And he saw – clearly – that for every individual to be free, and for our founding ideals to be realized, our entire society had to be transformed.

Despite the odds against him, he was undeterred. Despite the obstacles before him, he kept his faith. And despite those who tried to stand in his way, he proved that – here in America – large-scale, sweeping, righteous change is not impossible. It is not too audacious. It is not too ambitious. And it is not the province of God alone. Dr. King proved that a single person, willing to act, has the power to improve the world. And I believe that each one of us has a responsibility to try to do exactly that.

Of course, this is not easy work. And history has shown us that our most noble pursuits may be inspired by frustration just as often as by faith. But one of the most important lessons that Dr. King left to us is that it is acceptable to be frustrated. It is fine to be impatient. And, when progress does not come quickly or fully, it is only natural to be dissatisfied. In fact, being frustrated, impatient and dissatisfied is fine – but only if those feelings compel us to take action.

And then he spoke to a specific challenge we face today.

As [NAACP] President Jealous and others have discussed today – despite our nation’s record of progress, and long tradition of extending voting rights – today, a growing number of citizens are worried about the same disparities, divisions, and problems that Dr. King fought throughout his life to address and overcome. In recent months, in my travels across this country – and here in South Carolina – I’ve heard a consistent drumbeat of concern from citizens, who – often for the first time in their lives – now have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation’s most noble ideals; and that some of the achievements that defined the civil rights movement now hang in the balance.

Let me assure you: for today’s Department of Justice, our commitment to strengthening – and to fulfilling – our nation’s promise of equal opportunity and equal justice has never been stronger.

Nowhere is this clearer than in current efforts to expand access to, and prevent discrimination in, our election systems...

We need – and the American people deserve – election systems that are free from discrimination, free from partisan influence, and free from fraud. And we must do everything within our power to make certain that these systems are more, not less, accessible to the citizens of this country... But we can’t do it alone.

Protecting the right to vote, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed, not only as a legal issue – but as a moral imperative. And ensuring that every eligible citizen has the right to vote must become our common cause...

So let us seize this moment. Let us keep faith with Dr. King and rise to the challenges of our time. Let us act – with optimism and without delay; in honor of the men and women on whose shoulders we stand, and on behalf of the generations who will follow in our steps. And, in the spirit of Dr. King, let us signal to the world that – in America today – the pursuit of a more perfect union lives on, the march toward the Promised Land goes on, and the belief – not merely that we shall overcome, but that, as a nation, we will come together – continues to push us forward.

Taking on Cornel West's mistaken views about young people (updated)

This week Tavis Smiley hosted a forum titled Reawakening America: From Poverty to Prosperity.

Much of what came from Smiley and guests like Cornel West and Michael Moore was the same kind of thing we hear from them all the time. Bob Cesca did a great job of taking on the stupid that was uttered that night by Moore.

But right at the end, West said some things that have weighed heavily on my mind and heart ever since I heard it. I haven't been able to find a transcript, so what I'm about to quote comes from my own clumsy transcription from this video of the 2 1/2 hour event. I'll start at about 2:11:45.

But I'll say this about young folk in a critical way. I do not know of a wave of young people who are commensurate to the grandmothers and grandfathers and those ancestors that shaped me in terms of who I am. I just don't. And the reason is because young people have been so penetrated with the capitalist culture and the cultural superficial spectacle of instant gratification and overnight success and pushed button gettin over...So when we talk about the young people who are to make this fundamental social change, if you're not talking about courage and integrity and willingness to serve and sacrifice, then you're going to get bought out. You're gonna sell out quick. You're not gonna be a long distance runner. You're gonna be so obsessed with instant success and superficial status that you're gonna make your grandmama weep from the grave. Cause she wanted you to have earned greatness, not quick success. She wanted you measured by the love in your heart and the service that you rendered, not what your position is and how big your crib is. That's a very different sensibility. And that's a tradition we gotta keep. We gotta fight for that. We gotta keep it alive.

As I watched him say this, faces flashed across my mind...dozens of young people who's grandmama's heart would burst with pride in who they are, the sacrifices they've made and the service they've rendered.

You see, I work with young people like that every day. Many of them have battled through the most amazing odds to complete their educations, get degrees (a couple even went on to get their law degrees and license). And yet they have a commitment to helping the next generation be able navigate the difficult waters they passed through. And so they work for nothing in terms of money and prestige...every gawd-damned day. Not only that, they continue their service on their own time - doing everything from coaching kids in basketball leagues to serving on the executive board of our local NAACP. They live and breath service and sacrifice - away from the spotlight that shines on people like Cornel West.

And so it infuriates me to hear him talk like this. I happen to know that what I see every day is going on all over this country. These young people may not be marching in Mr. West's parade of outrage at the system...they're in there doing the dirty work of getting the job done. I've talked to them. They don't have time for Mr. West's pontificating and ego-driven tirades. They're too busy noticing that people are both literally and symbolically hungry. Their satisfaction comes - not in shaking their fist at why that is happening - but in making the bread to actually assuage the hunger.

Sometime in your life, hope that you might see one starved man, the look on his face when the bread finally arrives. Hope that you might have baked it or bought or even kneaded it yourself. For that look on his face, for the meeting of your eyes across a piece of bread, you might be willing to loose a lot, or suffer a lot, or die a little, even.

- Daniel Berrigan

Update: I want to include the words of some other wise people who have done a better job than I have in making these points.

First of all, back in October 2008, Newark Mayor Cory Booker (video) was interviewed by Bill Moyers. Booker is one of those young people who inspires me about the next generation. He doesn't have time for the fist-shaking. Its time to get to work!

But, I'm already getting fatigued with the conversation, and feeling that there's a dearth of action. That it may be in vogue right now because of this presidential election to talk about race, to study and to flip it over. But at the end of the day, is it gonna motivate action? We had the courage to deplore the reality in which we live, but will we show the equal courage to do something about it? Not wait. Not point a finger. Not sit and have debates about a divided America. But, to get into the trenches, to roll up your sleeves, to do the hard, difficult work it takes to manifest the greatness of this nation.

And no one has captured more eloquently than Rev. Gordon Stewart the importance of one generation stepping aside to let the next find their way forward. Here is his commentary on the inauguration of President Obama.

They are strange tears, like none other I have ever felt. It confuses me. I wonder what they're about. It feels like joy. A joy I have not felt for a long time. Joy... and hope... that something really new is happening. Joy that all the struggles and all the marches that wore holes in my generation's shoes on behalf of civil rights and peace have brought us to this indescribably holy moment that transcends the old divisions.

For sure, the tears that rise up in me are tears of joy. But they're also about something else. They feel like the convulsing sobs of a prisoner released from prison. They come from a hidden well of poison -- the well of deep grief stuffed away over all the years because of all the marches, all the beatings, all the blood, the well of buried anger -- the silent tears of grief over the America we had almost lost.

Then I realize: Only the appearance of joy and hope can release such deep grief. It was the joy on Yo-Yo Ma's face that finally released the poison locked inside my soul. It is the joy and hope of a new generation that's able to take us where my generation cannot -- free of the taint of sore feet and scars and old grudges the new President says we must move past.

Unlike Mr. West, Rev. Stewart was able to release the poison of the past and recognize that his generation needs to get out of the way and let young people carry the torch forward...in their own way.