Rerum Novarum Looks at the Year Ahead

I. Shawn McElhinney makes a litany of predictions for 2004.

I'll make two guesses predictions, which I've been mulling for quite some time:

1. the Republican Party will gain seats in both the U.S. House and Senate; and,
2. there will be a major terrorist attack on U.S. interests (that is, either on U.S. soil or against U.S. companies, etc.) in late summer or early fall, timed to turn the electorate against George W. Bush. But (much like LAT's last-minute assault on Arnold Schwarzenegger) it will produce the opposite effect because it will be seen for what it is, an attempt by foreign powers to influence the election: even lots of Democrats will recoil.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 01/03/04 05:15:04 PM
Categorized as Other.

"Threats to Democracy at Code-Red Level"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXXXII

An... interesting... column by Edward Wenk in the Seattle Past Intelligence Post-Intelligencer, Dec. 31.

The shock and awe of 9/11 has not faded. Americans remain in jeopardy of terrorists willing to die simply to lull and frighten innocent civilians. Taking precautions to preserve our security is essential, but in that process, have we self-inflicted a second class of danger that threatens our cherished freedom, justice and democracy, a condition grim enough to deserve code red?

Consider the USA Patriot Act titled "Uniting and strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Funds to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism." Noble as that objective is, the act's provisions are scary. Government can now collect data on library withdrawals, charge card records, medical and financial histories. Surveillance can be ratcheted to monitor your e-mail, wiretap you under a generic warrant, search your home without a warrant and label you a "terrorist" if you are among activists exercising rights to dissent. In a swoon of hysteria, Congress passed this statute in 45 days with only two hours of hearings

Pending is Patriot Act II, the Domestic Security Enhancement Act, to legalize indefinite detention without charges, to end court-imposed limits to spying on religious and political organizations and to withdraw citizenship for civil disobedience.

Constitutional lawyers claim the First Amendment is violated by letting the FBI investigate those engaged in free expression, free association and unfettered practice of religion. The Fourth Amendment is violated by intrusive surveillance without probable cause, infringing privacy of targeted individuals. Human rights to moral order are maimed as aliens are tried in military tribuna1s able to impose death sentences without appeal.

Ponder even more zealous implementation by Attorney General John Ashcroft should the United States be attacked by terrorists with a nuclear weapon.

If these acts stir alarms, connect the dots of other risks to democracy:

• The Electoral College created by the Constitution has proven obsolete. It led to George W. Bush's presidency even though Al Gore had a popular majority of 540,000. The election turned on electoral votes in Florida where three counties were in dispute. Voting machines left hanging chads and butterfly ballots that warranted a recount. With the nation paralyzed by uncertainty, a country judge in Tallahassee, the Florida Supreme Court and its Legislature ignited a saga of recounts and deadlines. The U.S. Supreme Court abruptly stopped proceedings that would likely have shown Gore the victor. Citizens didn't elect Bush; the Supreme Court appointed him illegally.
• To block a replay requires a constitutional amendment. Since that process takes years, improvements for the 2004 election have been mandated in voting machinery.
• Machines now being acquired are highly vulnerable to fraud. Corporate owners will only rent and not sell their equipment, keeping inner workings secret from election officials and providing no paper trail for recounts.
• The concentration of media also threatens democracy because citizens can be swamped with biased news or blocked from any. Democracy requires that those who govern do so at the informed consent of the governed. By allowing a few network operators to own a majority of stations in a given area, and by abandoning principles of "equal time," the Federal Communications Commission lets stations broadcast political propaganda of authorities in power -- entertaining but not enlightening.
• Reforms in campaign funding do not diminish the imperative to raise funds for TV ads. Time and energy thus required of candidates dilutes their primary role as policy-makers.
• The military-industrial-congressional complex controls half the national budget and subverts priorities preferred by the electorate.
• The White House blocks freedom of information and keeps secret names of campaign contributors seeking access to power as major policies are drafted. Vice President Dick Cheney hides his cadre of advisers on energy policy. The administration's rationale for war with Iraq wanders while the public wonders about military intelligence and true presidential goals.
• The White House lacks tolerance for healthy dissent. The most influential advisers have the same biases as the president, nurturing error, blunder and folly.
• Redistricting anticipated by the Constitution to reflect population shifts has been pathologically distorted by gerrymandering so that incumbent Republicans are virtually guaranteed re-election.
• Education of children neglects the beauty of democracy with its civic responsibilities, so few young people vote.
• Democracy is not born in the genes. It takes continuing diligence. While our government tries earnestly to seed democracy abroad in the Middle East, at home it, ironically, shrinks democracy and even the appetite for freedom.

Vigilance is essential about physical threats from abroad, but we must also guard against erosion of our liberties and invasion of our privacy. The electorate should insist that Congress serve as a balance wheel, not a rubber stamp, that elected officials be held accountable, that public interest advocacy be nourished and that the media be free to practice journalism's highest standards.

With dots connected, these 10 threats to democracy are at a level of Code Red.

Edward Wenk Jr. was the first science adviser to Congress, on policy staffs of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon and was founding director of the University of Washington's Program in Social Management of Technology.

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Let's pluck just one sentence from all that, to put this fellow's viewpoint into perspective: The concentration of media also threatens democracy because citizens can be swamped with biased news or blocked from any. The reality? Since the advent of mass media, never have so many varying sources of information been available to so many people. Cable and the Internet are largely responsible for this. What this guy really, really means is Fox News and Drudge are ruining left-wing monopoly of the news, which is damaging the ability of people who think like me to get their way all the time, but I can't come right out and say that, so I'll make up some fantasy about the diminishing variety of opinions being presented.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 01/03/04 12:55:13 PM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode.

A Rational Response?

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXXXI

E.J. Dionne — sounds like a Doo-Wopper's name, no? — writes at WaPo, Dec. 30.

Every action, said the political pundit Sir Isaac Newton, produces an equal and opposite reaction.

The year 2003 will be remembered as the time when Democrats decided to fight back against George W. Bush after coddling and even embracing him in 2002. This whiplash will mean some surprising things for 2004.

It's hard to think of any other president who has gone so quickly from being so unifying to being so divisive. There was hardly a soul this side of Noam Chomsky who didn't support Bush for some time after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and didn't support the war on the Taliban in Afghanistan. Even Democrats who never conceded that Bush had legitimately won the 2000 election wanted to give Bush a chance to lead the country out of crisis.

So what went wrong? Unrequited bipartisanship. Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological. For a few months after the attacks, that was the Bush who showed up to work every day. He and the Democrats did a lot of business together, and the country seemed happy.

It could not last, because Bush didn't want to be Dwight D. Eisenhower, a nonpartisan leader who unified the country without being much help to his party. Ticket splitting began in a big way during the 1950s when millions of Democrats went for Ike but stuck with their party on the rest of the ballot. Bush wanted to realign the country and create a Republican majority for bold conservative policies at home and abroad.

And so, even as he was shoveling money out the door for national defense and new engagements abroad, Bush went for more tax cuts for the wealthy. He moved from Afghanistan to Iraq and ridiculed Democrats who held off on full endorsement of the war against Saddam Hussein pending strong United Nations support. In September 2002, shortly before the midterm elections, Bush mocked such Democrats as saying, according to Bush: "Oh, by the way, on a matter of national security, I'm going to wait for somebody else to act."

And just before the elections, Bush went after Democrats for their stand on the homeland security bill, turning the very ground on which bipartisanship had been built into an electoral battlefield.

Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever. Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face.

No one understood this sense of betrayal better or earlier than Howard Dean. Dean's candidacy took off because many in the Democratic rank and file were furious that Washington Democrats allowed themselves to be taken to the cleaners. Many of Dean's current loyalists had been just as supportive of Bush after Sept. 11 because they, too, felt that doing so was patriotic. So Dean also spoke to their personal sense of grievance.

Here's what's interesting for 2004: The conventional wisdom, fed by shrewd Republican operatives and commentators, is that Democrats, so out there in their antipathy for Bush, will push their party into an extremist wonderland and lose white men, security moms and anybody else who does not share their desire for revenge.

The opposite is true. Democrats will not have to spend inordinate amounts of time or money in this election year "uniting their base." Opposition to Bush has already done that.

In the 2000 election, Bush had an advantage over Al Gore because Republican rank-and-filers so hated Bill Clinton -- and so wanted to win -- that they gave Bush ample room to sound as moderate as John Breaux or Olympia Snowe. Bush's 2000 Republican National Convention hid the base behind the appealing face of inclusiveness and outreach. Gore, in the meantime, had to claw back the votes of liberals and lefties who had strayed to Ralph Nader.

This time the Democrats will have most of the election year to appeal to swing voters. Democrats are so hungry to beat Bush that they will let their nominee do just about anything, even be pragmatic and shrewd.

That's why 2004 will be very different from 2003. Democrats who loved Dean's attacks on Bush this year now want Dean to prove he can beat him. Dean's opponents know this, which is why their core case is that Dean can't win. And watch for the appearance of the new, pragmatic Howard Dean, the doctor with an unerring sense of his party's pulse.

postchat@aol.com

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

Well, that certainly is a point of view. I like this part best: Republicans won in 2002, but Bush lost most Democrats forever. Conservative critics of "Bush hatred" like to argue that opposition to the president is a weird psychological affliction. It is nothing of the sort. It is a rational response to getting burned. They are, as a friend once put it, biting the hand that slapped them in the face. That is what Dion & the Belmonts Dionne thinks is a description of being reasonable.

But this part is memorable, too: So what went wrong? Unrequited bipartisanship. Implicitly, the Democrats expected that the new situation would produce a new Bush, less partisan and less ideological. For a few months after the attacks, that was the Bush who showed up to work every day. He and the Democrats did a lot of business together, and the country seemed happy. Implicitly? Really? But, bipartisanship is a two-way street. (That's what the "bi" in "bipartisanship" actually means, though most Democrats seem to think that "bipartisanship" means "Democrats Getting Their Own Way".) Since the president is commander-in-chief and the chief executive, whereby he represents our country to the rest of the world, shouldn't it have been the president who could have implicitly expected less partisanship and less ideology from the Democrats?

BTW, this article seems to be a belated response to Dr. Charles Krauthammer's diagnosis of Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 01/03/04 11:42:45 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political.

"Gay Community Gave Dean Early Boost"

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXXX

A WaPo article, Jan. 1.

Former Vermont governor Howard Dean's record-setting fundraising first took off in large part because of an outpouring of support from the gay community.

With just one exception, every fundraiser Dean attended outside Vermont in 2002 was organized by gay men and lesbians, as were more than half the events in the first quarter of 2003, according to Dean advisers.

"The early foundation of Governor Dean's presidential campaign -- both in fundraising and organization -- was built by the support of the LGBT [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] community around the country," said Dean finance director Stephanie Schriock.

The gay community "was the first to recognize Dean's strength of character after his leadership on Vermont's civil union legislation, and because of that, they were the first to open up their homes for events and ask their friends and colleagues to give money to this endeavor," she added.

This early backing provided a foundation for Dean to expand his core support to include voters opposed to the Iraq war, angry at President Bush, embittered by the outcome of the 2000 election and discontented with what they saw as a Democratic Party establishment without backbone.

All nine Democratic presidential candidates support most issues of importance to gay organizations, but Dean has one major advantage: On April 26, 2000, he signed the nation's first law granting same-sex couples the right to enter legally sanctioned civil unions that provide many of the protections of traditional marriage.

The gay community has become a powerful force in the Democratic Party, reflecting the growing importance of socially and culturally liberal groups in providing both votes and money, as business and trade associations shift increasingly toward the Republican Party.

Key Democratic fundraisers estimate that the gay community provides at least 10 percent of the money flowing to the party and its nominees.

In a reflection of the politicization of the gay community, the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, which requires a contribution of $10,000, has more than 300 members, said Executive Director Lila G. Gracey. Of the DNC's constituency groups, the top three sources of cash are the Gay and Lesbian Leadership Council, the Business Council, and the Women's Leadership Forum.

In 2001 and early 2002, well before he announced his candidacy, Dean capitalized on his signing of the civil unions law and his hero status in the gay community, speaking to branches of the Human Rights Campaign and other organizations across the county.

Some of the largest contributions to the Fund for a Healthy America, the political action committee Dean set up in 2001 to finance the exploration of a presidential campaign, were from prominent leaders in the gay community.

In November 2001, David Bohnett, chairman of the David Bohnett Foundation, which according to its Web site supports "the positive portrayal of lesbians and gay men in the media," gave the Dean PAC $5,000, and Charles C. Nolan, the partner of DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias, gave $2,500. In December, Kathy Levinson, a successful Palo Alto, Calif., entrepreneur and founder of the Lesbian Equity Foundation of Silicon Valley, contributed $5,000.

One of the first major donors to Dean after he formally announced his candidacy was Georgetown University law professor Craig Hoffman. He first heard Dean speak at a California meeting of gay philanthropists sponsored by the Gill Foundation and in May 2002 contributed $1,000.

Even though the view then was that "he didn't have a chance," Hoffman said, "I didn't care, because at least there was someone saying things that I believed in without being afraid." In November 2002, Hoffman hosted a Dean fundraiser in Washington that 40 people attended.

The Dean campaign's first presidential fundraiser was June 22, 2002, on New York's Fire Island, a summer resort community popular among gays. James F. Guidera of New York was on Fire Island and decided to see what an unknown former Vermont governor had to say. He left impressed. "If you are in the gay community and you see a governor who signs the civil unions law and everyone else is afraid of the whole concept, and even Democrats are helping to pass the Defense of Marriage Act, then Dean stands out," Guidera said.

In June 2002, Guidera gave the Dean presidential campaign $1,000, then the maximum allowed under law.

Guidera and other donors said they were impressed not only by Dean's outspoken support of gay rights but also by his enthusiastic readiness to do battle with the GOP on controversial and divisive issues.

"The Republican Party seems eager to run against me because of my role in enactment of this historic law. I welcome that debate," Dean writes on his Web site. "I can't wait to ask the President of the United States . . . to repudiate the GOP-authored Defense of Marriage Act, an unconstitutional, mean-spirited law that stoked fears of homosexuality."

The gay community's support has paid off not only in cash -- helping Dean set an all-time Democratic record of at least $40 million raised through the end of last year -- but also in a decisive lead among gay voters, according to two surveys.

"Dean realized that after civil unions happened he had a naturally expanded base beyond Vermont, a constituency that was looking for someone, a constituency that wanted a change from the existing administration as strongly as any other," said Chuck Wolfe, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund.

Winnie Stachelberg, political director of the Human Rights Campaign, said, "Governor Dean early on used his support from the gay and lesbian community as key building blocks to a campaign that we see as hugely successful, as having built a large grass-roots network both in terms of contributors and ground troops." The group has not endorsed a presidential candidate.

Two independent surveys of gay voters last summer showed Dean holding a substantial lead over his Democratic opponents, a 22-percentage-point lead in one, and a 33-point lead in the other.

One of the first organizations to endorse Dean was the New Jersey-based Gay and Lesbian Political Action and Support Groups (GayPASG), run by John Campbell and Richard Harrison.

Campbell said he and Harrison were in Vermont "the day civil unions became available."

"We got our license the first day and a justice of the peace to do the ceremony," he said. "We've been supportive of him ever since." They have held three Dean fundraisers.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company

The Blog from the Core asserts Fair Use for non-commercial, non-profit educational purposes.

"The Republican Party seems eager to run against me because of my role in enactment of this historic law. I welcome that debate," Dean writes on his Web site. "I can't wait to ask the President of the United States . . . to repudiate the GOP-authored Defense of Marriage Act, an unconstitutional, mean-spirited law that stoked fears of homosexuality." Hey, Howie: come down off your high horse. It's quite the subterfuge to call it the "GOP-authored" act while failing to mention that Democrat president Bill Clinton eagerly signed the bill — and his vice-president has quite famously endorsed you. Why don't you ask Al Gore about it? That's a much more interesting scenario than asking George W. Bush.

But something tells me that Bush can't wait for you to have the chance to ask him... anything at all.

"Dean realized that after civil unions happened he had a naturally expanded base beyond Vermont, a constituency that was looking for someone, a constituency that wanted a change from the existing administration as strongly as any other," said Chuck Wolfe, executive director of the Gay & Lesbian Victory Fund. Gee. It sounds like this guy thinks Dean's support of "civil unions" ("marriage" by another name) was politically motivated, doesn't it?

So, Faithful Reader, what's up with this article? Is it supposed to help or to hurt Dean? (I pass aside as absurd the idea that it's just supposed to provide information.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 01/03/04 09:35:10 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Political & Social/Cultural.

The Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive

Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode LXXIX

Vide.

I suspect that Krugman's spasmodic spluttering late this year is really going to be worth the wait. Assuming, of course, that he survives the election results.

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Sat. 01/03/04 09:10:38 AM
Categorized as Democrats in Self-Destruct Mode & Media & Political.