This post is a response to a recent editorial in the Washington Post by Charles Krauthammer, a conservative political writer and commentator.  His column is brief, and this post will make more sense if you read it.  I'll wait.

Okay.  So, if you don't know this guy, I can tell you, he is an unpleasant man. 
FOX News loves him as a guest; he contributes a unique blend of erudite and yet intensely sophomoric and hostile commentary on governmental atrocities committed by our President.  Attacking Barack Obama is his fetish.

The first thing I thought when I read this column is that I would rather think the best of others and be a million times disappointed in life, than go through it with as morose and contemptuous an attitude as Krauthammer’s.  His column reveals much more about himself than it does about Mr. Obama.  

With an air of triumph and pride, he delineates the Republican Party’s successes in their ongoing mission to obstruct at every turn the sitting President of the United States.  Their explicitly stated goal has always been to stand against anything the president supports, because he supports it.  One assumes the objective is for Obama to be seen, currently, and by history, as a failed president.  With this column, (rather prematurely, as we are currently in year 4.4 of the Obama era), based on a couple of GOP victories on high-profile votes, Krauthammer has decided to break out the champagne.  

Never mind that the country is hurting because of these victories.  Never mind that its citizens appear to be gradually catching on to the fact that they were won at great expense to all.  Writing with the same tone as would someone expressing an admirable and legitimate position, Krauthammer crows about recent punches Republicans have landed on the president’s jaw.  Not punches thrown in the name of principle or policy, mind you, but thrown because, well, they just hate that guy.

Let's look at some of what Mr. Krauthammer has to say:

"...the victor (a reelected Obama) is hailed as the new Caesar, facing an open road to domination..."

Mr. Krauthammer, you realize that you folks are the only ones who see it that way, right?  No Democrat I know has any desire for a Caesar in the White House.  On the domestic front, far from wanting to dominate others, we want to empower fellow citizens to each reach a place where they can grow, succeed, and be happy.  We want everyone to have doctors and medicine.  We want to learn to walk ever more lightly on the earth. We don’t want domination internationally, either; you’re projecting.  We want to support fledgling democracies across the world in their efforts toward self-determination.  We want to find peaceful agreement with opposing countries, not destroy them.  I wish you could know what it feels like to be in a party that is for something, rather than against everything.  It can be exhilarating.  It might even wipe that perpetual scowl off your face.

Let’s go on.  What else, Mr. K.?

"...Barack Obama, already naturally inclined to believe his own loftiness, graciously accepted the kingly crown..."

(Eye roll.)  Again...

"Thus emboldened, Obama turned his inaugural and State of the Union addresses into a left-wing dream factory, (including) his declaration of war on global warming (on a planet where temperatures are the same as 16 years ago and in a country whose CO2 emissions are at a 20-year low)…”

Er…  You frighten me, Mr. Krauthammer.

"Obama sought to fracture and neutralize the congressional GOP..."

Wait, Obama did what?  I think Republicans sought to... oh, never mind.  

"Obama cried wolf, predicting the end of everything we hold dear if the sequester was not stopped. It wasn't. Nothing happened."  

Yeah?  Tell that to the people who...  oh, never mind.  

"...Obama’s spectacular defeat on gun control..."

So, "spectacular" is the word that springs to mind for you there, Mr. K.?  I would have gone with "insanely immoral."  Because Republicans didn't oppose this bill in favor of another bill, one with a different approach to protecting the American people from random violence.  There was no pretense of a greater motivation for voting down this bill than a political strike against President Obama.  Mr. K., even if this bill had passed, it would be a time for sober optimism that it might stem the flow of blood.  To call its defeat “spectacular” is obscene.

And do understand, sir: it was a defeat for Obama only in the cheapest political sense.  The real defeat was for the gun-violence victims' families, traveling home from Washington after the vote, to Newtown and Chicago and Tucson and Aurora.  The real defeat will be felt, (terrifyingly enough) by people who don't even know it yet.  Maybe me.  Maybe someone I know.  It’s a defeat for the next victims of mass or otherwise indiscriminate shootings that could have been prevented by this bill.

"For Obama, gun control was a political disaster. He invested capital. He went on a multi-city tour. He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing...  Obama failed even to get mere background checks."

You usually hear the somewhat unsophisticated label "pervert" applied to someone with socially frowned-upon sexual proclivities.  I don't normally use the word myself.  But what can one say reading this stuff?  "He paraded grieving relatives. And got nothing."  Charles Krauthammer is a pervert.   

Finally, Krauthammer wraps up his column with a sarcastic, school-boy taunt; his take on the Obama Presidency to date: 

"From king of the world to dead in the water in six months. Quite a ride."

Republicans are a tribe.  They have retreated into a national yet somehow provincial horde.  They defend their holdings with all their might.  They see the rest of us as constant threats to their sovereignty and survival. 

Democrats are a party of many tribes.  In the current iteration of the two parties, we are simply the one more comfortable with a broad mix of folks, a wide diversity of opinion within the party, and the ability to think of unlike groups as potential members of coalitions, coming together around overlapping concerns.

Republicans are starting to understand that such a conglomeration, with varying backgrounds, needs and priorities but with a firm set of shared ideals, is likely to keep growing; in size and therefore power.  Their response is to reluctantly edge open the gate to their compound, remain inside, and beg others to come in and join the tribe.  Their strategy is to tell these others that they would benefit from coming inside the compound and hating everyone outside it.  They’ll even accept those who look like outsiders, as long as they agree to mimic and obey tribal customs and dictates.

Welllll, GOP, good luck with that.  You have quite a cheery spokesperson in Charles Krauthammer.  Most of us are honestly hoping you will ditch him and his ilk, pass through the gate, leave the tribe behind, and join the rest of us.  Not to be Democrats, necessarily.  Just come out here away from that tribe.  With us, you can believe anything you want, live the way you prefer, and promote anything you believe in.  That's how we roll out here.  We just ask that you don't sacrifice the good of the people for the will of that angry little tribe.

Then maybe you can get back to making real contributions on important matters.  From a sane conservative perspective, if you like.  On important matters like the economy, defense policy, governmental effectiveness and transparency, tax policy, and so on.  You're needed.

In the meantime, I just hope the rest of us can survive the tribe.

Julie Boler

In discussions about atheism with friends, relatives, and folks in online discussion groups, I've noticed that the separation of church and state issue gets lots of attention.  I think it is the central issue.  It's one thing I always mention.  But I've noticed it doesn't seem to function for some of my associates in these dialogues the same way it does for me.  I think of it as a bottom-line shared value on the left, and I sense in these groups that we all place great importance on it.  But I ultimately hear it employed to say, "The problem with religion is that people want to base laws on it." But isn't that in fact a problem with people that want to base laws on it?

As long as we keep our dukes up and make sure that piece is protected, isn't whatever someone else believes sort of none of our business?  As long as they are not setting policy or writing curriculum, why is there such intense resolve on the part of some atheists to keep pressing and pressing the point that everyone else has stupid beliefs?  That seems like the height of bigotry, and I haven't heard anyone yet say convincingly why it isn't.  

On a personal level, I am getting so sick of people I respect and feel great affection for, whom I assume have similar feelings for me, stating over and over that my belief system - which they know nothing about except that it isn't atheism - is wrong.  That it's valid to use their metrics to evaluate my private intellectual system for organizing ideas about the mysteries of life.  I can't believe it sometimes.  I don't get why that isn't an egregiously prejudiced, snobbish response.

I personally have no interest in searching historical records for signs of miracles or accounts of the lives of prophets.  My eyes glaze over hearing about such things.  In terms of my own beliefs, there is no "proof," for or against them.  They are just how I picture what we don't yet know about life.  You can't really hold them up to a logical analysis any more than you could use a mathematical equation to measure exactly how much I love my husband.  Any more than you can study pride or envy or awe in a laboratory.  But to say "it's not supposed to be logical" to the evangelical atheist is like throwing yourself to the wolves.  "There you go!  If it's 'not logical," then it's faulty thinking by definition!"  

Meanwhile, it's my mind, it's my belief system, and it's a big part of who I am. I don't follow dogma, or worship a god, but I think about intangible things in the universe in a way that is open, curious, optimistic and...throwing myself to the wolves again...spiritual.  I love the word spiritual.  It signals ignorance to my friends.  But there is nothing ignorant about wondering why the sight of geese passing over autumn trees makes me feel melancholy in a good way. And why thunderstorms both scare us and attract us. Yes, dears, they scare us to trigger the adaptive response of taking shelter.  But why do they captivate us too?  It's a rhetorical question; please don't send me the evolutionary reason.  I don't picture thunder as God bowling, but I think it is magical and mystical and it would bore me to hear why it also promotes the survival of the species.  So does minding your own business about what's in someone else's head.  Dears.

And as far as people who do believe in things like Jesus or Allah or rain dances or holy books - I can't believe the way they are condemned wholesale by some atheists.  It is so surprising to me sometimes.  There is a terribly culturally-insensitive aspect to this, so shocking to see played out in liberal discussions.  Some seem to feel comfortable mocking whole cultures; whole groups of people who have for generations woven ritual and talismans and rosaries and prayers and holy water and clergy into their lives and communities.  And the lip-service paid to the idea that religion "can play an important role in society" or "sometimes helps people feeeeel better" is so dismissive and superior it makes me a little ill.  

If the spiritual beliefs of others aren't being forced on you, why does it destroy your day to be aware of them in public?  I get that it is ubiquitous, but so is body odor, if you live in the city.  I get that it is symbolic to some people of their own traumatic childhood upbringings.  To some victims of sexual violence or child abuse, every male with a certain hair color and height does that too. I am not a Christian, but I have the social skills to get through a Christian funeral or wedding.  I may roll my eyes when people think there's praying in football, but I don't spend any time on it.  I'm more turned off by brightly-painted belly flab than by the sign of the cross from the kicker.

Now, I did have a she-Hulk fit, and lodge an official complaint, when I heard a Christian invocation used to open a county-wide meeting when I worked in the public school system.  Although surprised, I stood and bowed my head because I prefered that to noticeably sitting it out.  But I'd have completely respected anyone else doing the latter, especially in that setting.  I made a mental note to email someone to say that even this ecumenical prayer I was hearing should not have been included at a school system meeting.  But when they closed it with "in Jesus' name we pray," I almost flipped the table over.  Even in rural NC you'd think they should know about Jews from TV.  I didn't break anything, but they heard from me later, formally and emphatically.  

But I didn't get bogged down picking apart the contents of the prayer.  The prayer shouldn't have been there at all.  It is beside the point whether I believe Jesus is magic.  I had no interest in pronouncing everyone at that meeting who had crossed themselves to be intellectually bankrupt, superstitious or wrong.  If you try to worm it into public policy or curriculum, you're all mine.  Otherwise, go for it.

It is not true that you have to choose between believing in evolution and science, and having abstract philosophical ideas that are inconsistent with what science knows now. If you think it is, you aren't thinking deeply.  I have been told that believing anything could exist outside what can be proven is by definition superstitious - an ignorant tolerance for the concept of the supernatural.  But doesn't my thinking reflect my love for science when I ponder to myself, "I wonder if there could be a force of love in the same way there is a force of gravity?"  Saying that certain of your ideas exist outside of science and aren't subject to proofs, is not saying you don't believe the proofs we have.  That just sounds obtuse to me!

I will put out a challenge to my readers: please, be the first person who can convincingly explain to me why the following words sound better coming out of one mouth than another: 

• "Your beliefs aren't just different from mine; they're wrong."
  
• "Instead of believing what you believe, you should believe what I believe."
• "You teach your kids that???"
• "I must go out and convince others that this is the only right thing to believe."

Personally, I don't want to hear that mess from anyone.

I think the atheist movement has been brilliant, incredibly important, and exciting.  In an amazingly short time the very idea of vocal, activist atheists has gone from 0 to 60. Just a few years ago, people thought an atheist was some crank father who didn't want his child saying the pledge.  Well that turned out to be a worthy and seminal cause, and now it's a whole movement led and followed by countless intelligent, witty, creative and accomplished people.  This is the perfect time for people in the movement to figure out how to define themselves in a way that doesn't reflect everything they hate about organized religion.

Yes, liberals are giddy.  After eight years of Bush, and many more during which the very word "liberal" was considered slander, we gloat too much about our victories.  We appear to wish death upon the GOP.  In our less realistic moments, perhaps we do.


But we also know that a robust two-party system is vital to the integrity and effectiveness of the democracy.  We know that the push-pull of different political orientations; the vigorous debate that must transpire to get at a truth; and the balance created by having a variety of viewpoints represented over time - those things comprise the genius of the great American experiment.

That is why the failure of the current Republican Party to offer intelligent and helpful debate is felt by some of us as a loss. 

Liberals do feel giddy about this uniquely gifted president, his improbable success, and his ability to brilliantly, unapologetically promote bedrock liberal principles.

But contrary to popular conservative opinion, we don't worship President Obama.  Governing is a human endeavor.  We don’t expect or perceive perfection.  It is a task too complex and critical to leave subject to the fallibility of one person's leadership, or to ask one party to shoulder alone.

At no time has everyone on the left been unified in evaluating the president's effectiveness or judgment.  Even amongst ourselves we have a diversity of opinion on matters of national importance.  We don’t have all the answers.  So it’s actually a matter of unfairness for the entire Republican Party to get so bogged down in wound-licking and reactionary dogma that even its smartest members cede the voice of their party to the wing nuts.   It isn't fair.

Gun violence is complicated.  Poverty is complicated.  Drone use is complicated.  Questions about the ideal purview of government are complicated.  Questions about the proper role of the Intelligence community in Defense endeavors are complicated.  The modern economy is complicated. 

So when particularly sobering problems emerge, forcing our giddiness to evaporate, even those of us on the left who are generally highly partisan and self-righteous about our ideas recognize the need for all hands on deck.  It then becomes infuriating to see the disarray, shallowness, and nastiness that presently rule the GOP.

On Monday, NBC investigative journalist Michael Isikoff broke the news about a memo that reveals the Obama administration’s communication failures and programmatic ambiguity regarding its use of drones to combat homeland security threats.  Critical questions about how and when drones may be used against American citizens are unanswered.  
Questions like, how exactly is it determined that an American citizen has become an enemy combatant?  Would such a person have an opportunity to surrender before being assassinated?  Can such a person be killed on American soil?  As Isikoff pointed out Monday evening on The Rachel Maddow Show, the administration has been effectively unable to say that current guidelines don’t allow for an American citizen, living in a US city, to be killed in bed at night by government operatives.  But because what passes on the right these days for reason is actually a paranoid, lunatic fringe-type thinking, we can’t have a real discussion about it.

The most obstinate partisan must acknowledge the fact that no matter how much you trust the people in power now, within a few years the people in power will be a whole new group of folks, with the same power. 

I have tremendous faith in this administration.  I trust Barack Obama.  But participatory government is our duty in this country, so we should ask these questions, and they should answer.  No administration can get everything right.  I believe the President when I hear him express his intent to improve the transparency and codification of these processes.  I believe him when he describes the challenge of managing on-going and imminent threats while simultaneously trying to draft publicly vetted rules of engagement for a frontier mode of defense.  (A mode of defense that, in my mind, has great promise as a tool to help us delay or avoid full-scale war.) 

I have found it hard to broach this topic outside liberal zones, in politically-mixed groups.  I am stopped by a feeling of protectiveness about the President that springs from the relentless, unwarranted, vindictive scrutiny of him by the right.  I'm not talking about the honest pressure for transparency and ethical rigor that can and should come from an opposition truly loyal to the cause of democracy.  That kind of pressure is good. That kind of pressure is what we need.  

A party that has allowed high-ranking members to go uncensured for meeting the very night of Mr. Obama’s first inauguration to strategize ways to oppose him at every turn, including voting against his favored legislation even if it is in sync with their own positions.  A party still represented by both elected and unelected officials who openly, repeatedly vowed during his first term to put the welfare of the republic at temporary risk if it helped the cause of "making Obama a one term president."  A party that recently reelected a national chair who claimed during his first tenure that Obama's presidency would cause "an end to our way of life in America." 

These examples illustrate the hyper-critical and one-dimensional Republican view of Mr. Obama; they don’t even touch on all the other Stupid Republican Tricks that expose a readiness to abandon our time-tested system of judiciously prosecuting policy proposals.  Tricks like putting creationists on the House Science Committee, proffering "self-deportation" as a legitimate immigration reform device, employing a willful misinterpretation of the "you didn't build that" Obama campaign quote as a major campaign theme, or deeming the taunting of Iran a useful foreign policy approach.  

These doings, along with many others, all demand that countless hours of pointless, inane, mental energy be spent on faux issues or backwards policies while pressing problems are at hand.

Shouldn't thoughtful criticism be the responsibility of everyone?  

Yes, citizen members of the party in power should be expected to push themselves to critique and challenge their chosen administrations, publicly and forcefully.  But we should also be able to rely on the opposition party to be constructively skeptical and civilly unsympathetic.

Republicans.  Pull your selves together.  We need your help on this drone thing.

I was ten years old when George McGovern ran for President.  He was my first political hero. 

This was partly because my friends and I thought he was really cute.  But it was also because of what he stood for, and what kind of man he was.


I was fortunate to grow up in a politically-active, socially-aware family;  stalwart Democrats.  We were all-in for the "McGovern for President" campaign.  Even at that age I was tuned in to the issues and loved the excitement of being involved.  My siblings and I would pile in our station wagon and accompany our parents to rallies.  We spent some Saturday afternoons passing out leaflets in shopping centers and neighborhoods. 

McGovern was a national leader that I could look up to in real-time, not from a history book.  His personality conveyed both depth and accessibility.  McGovern exuded integrity, compassion, intelligence.  As I kid, I was impressed with how confident he seemed in speaking out against war and for poor people.

And again, my classmates and I couldn't believe how much cuter he was than Nixon.  I can't emphasize that enough.

So all of this added up to making him a hero to me.

McGovern was a fervent anti-war activist, and a decorated Army combat veteran.  I always thought of that as an unimpeachable combination.  As wide-eyed as he was portrayed to be, Senator McGovern came to his views on war from personal experience in the trenches. 

Like a lot of peacemakers and complex social thinkers, McGovern was un-flashy and under-appreciated.  He was done the same disservice as was eventually done to a string of very liberal Democratic Presidential candidates who came after him; Ted Kennedy, Walter Mondale, Jesse Jackson, Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis - serious, intelligent, caring, public servants who were successfully branded as laughingstocks - Don Quixotes, weak-minded, bleeding-heart doves.  McGovern took the brunt of a powerful wave of scorn for leftist thought that created a real stigma around the word "liberal".

I will leave it to political scientists with more knowledge than me to explain the perfect storm of world and national; social and economic events that allowed that stigma to take root.  But even then, even as a young, white, mid-Western, middle-class schoolgirl, I knew it was wrong.  And I knew that my hero, Senator George McGovern, suffered for it; but that he kept his head up in the face of it, and continued to articulate the bedrock liberal values I have today.  Back then we called it being for peace, for women's lib, and for equal rights for black people.  We called it being against pollution, against religious judgement, and against police brutality.  But most of the time we just called it "being Democrats".

I'm glad George McGovern stayed actively interested in politics and public service long enough to see a return of liberal pride.  He had a chance to see his old colleague Ted Kennedy earn his rightful place as a vaunted Democratic leader.  He got to see many advances in the fight for equal rights for women, racial and ethnic minorities, and LGBT Americans.  He got to support Hilary Clinton as a fiercely competitive presidential primary candidate, and then Barack Obama as a successful nominee.

I imagine he had concerns about rising threats to voting rights, choice, and our already fragile safety net.  I'm sure he was disturbed by the ongoing attempt to demonize run-of-the-mill liberal theory as Socialism.  I can imagine he saw the bristling, blustering conservative approach to foreign policy as chillingly ominous.

But hopefully he also felt - looking at those of us who have taken up causes he helped define in the modern era - that he was leaving the country in good hands.

(Okay, okay, we can start with me.  I'll calm down after November 7th, promise.)

Here's the thing.  In broad strokes, it's working pretty well. Neither side on this issue is about to take over. We don't live in anything like a socialist country, and we don't have a laissez-faire economy.    

Can we acknowledge that, and move on to talking about levels of government intervention and investment?  Can we respectfully examine whether a specific program or regulation is effective or wasteful?  Maybe we could do a less emotional cost/benefit analysis of a proposal for revenue, or one for cutting expenses.  We could have a rational conversation about whether a major facet of democracy, say providing an education to the populace, is better administrated on a large scale - as we do with Defense - because of its scope;
or on the local level - like libraries, or zoning, in order to be more responsive to community concerns.   

Most of us have both visceral and thoughtful philosophies about these issues.  Probably because wealth is power, and absolute lack of it is impotence.  And most of us spend our lives floating somewhere between the two extremes, hoping for more of the one, and fearing the other.

But right now in this country it's the visceral aspect of our individual philosophies that is holding sway in our dialogue.  We are all responsible, myself included.  The benefit is that the visceral can get people saying what they mean - like in a family fight.  But to get anywhere constructive, everyone has to settle in after the shouting and figure out, with a commitment to working it through together, how we get everybody's needs met.

Democrats and Republicans need relationship counseling.  The first thing we would probably be told is to develop some ground rules.  And if I had to start us off with just one, it would be this:

Agree that there is no correlation between character flaws and income level.  This is just my own theory, and yes, I have the seen studies to the contrary, in both directions.  I think the very exercise of trying to quantify it is flawed. 

If you presented me with research that found more people at one income level guilty of bad behavior than at another, I would immediately ask, "what intrinsic problems for people at that income level might be leading to your results, and how on earth do you control for that?!"

• For example, if a low-income person is observed demonstrating focus on short-term goals, and displaying a lack of confidence in upward-mobility, wouldn't that be based on learned realities?  Are they realistic? What might change them?

(Obviously, I'm making these examples up for argument's sake!  I'm using the stereotypes for shorthand.)

• If a wealthy person appears oblivious or indifferent to the toll taken by the long-term daily grind on poor people, isn't it the cumulative effect of endless obstacles that is impossible to grasp without direct experience?

• If a middle-income person shows a tendency to provincialism, couldn't that be due to the competitive aspects of achievement, and the tenuousness of social status and material comfort at that income level?

On top of all this, observable attitudes and behaviors that appear to reflect someone's income experience could be more a function of personality, or family history. 

And more flamboyant attitudes and behaviors are incorrectly seen as representative. 

And context gets ignored. 

So the woman on welfare who gets up at 5 am to go to work stocking shelves is invisible, as is the heiress that puts on sweats to go cook meals at the Rescue Mission.

What if we could stipulate that class does not dictate moral superiority - at any level. 

And when we find ourselves thinking it does, we take ownership of our prejudices and bend over backwards to overcome them. 

Then we can decide how to distribute the pie without slinging apple-filling at each other.

Try this one:
Poor people just want a hand up,
not a hand out.

Conservative pundits are very stressed right now, fretting about how to position themselves on Mitt Romney's comments at a May fundraiser in Florida.  In a just released video, recorded by a hidden camera, the Republican presidential candidate is seen wringing his hands, convinced that almost half the country is belligerently dependent on the government. 


His supporters don't know how to spin it.  Not because they disagree with what Romney said, but because they're afraid he won't get elected and put his ideas into action. 

Some think he got the numbers wrong.
Okay...so if it's not 47%, what's the right number?  It doesn't matter.  It wouldn't matter if he said 37%, or 27%.  He mis-characterized the group of people he's talking about. Who cares if he got the head count wrong?

Some think he sounded mean and stupid. 
That he could have found a more graceful way to phrase it.  But it's the idea, that liberals want people to stay dependent, that is mean and stupid.  It's the idea that people receiving public assistance are happy with their lives, and want to reelect this President so he can keep their checks coming in while they do nothing, that is mean and stupid.  It's better that he said it in such an ugly way.  It's ugly.

Some think he didn't really mean it. 
Mitt Romney doesn't really mean this?  "... there are 47 percent who are with (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."

If Mitt Romney doesn't mean that, it's only because he doesn't "mean" anything.  It's because he doesn't think deeply about anything, and doesn't care much about who we are in this country. That's the only way that excuse works; if he didn't mean what he said in that videotape, it's not because he means something more hopeful, caring, and respectful of his fellow citizens.

The best Republican response is from the irrepressible Grover Norquist. 
Not surprisingly, he's in the I-like-what-Romney-said-just-not-how-he-said-it camp. He merely wants the campaign to get their wording right. He was relieved to talk to an operative who assured him they had sorted out their responding rhetoric. "I went up to the campaign and I said, What’s your take on this? And I got back the perfect answer: 'We’re working to provide opportunity, while the other team is trying to teach dependence.' And (Norquist chortles,) we win that fight in America.  If this was Bulgaria in 1957, I’m not sure we’d win the debate. In the United States, we win that debate."

Thing is, though, the other team is not "trying to teach dependence."  What we are trying to do is give people a hand up, not a.. well, you know the saying.  We try to explain this over and over.  And yet, here we are again.  Now it's Communist Bulgaria.

To review: 

• Believing that government must play a role in guaranteeing that people have food and shelter, when they otherwise wouldn't, is not teaching dependency. 
• Believing the government should play a role in providing for its citizens' education, health care, and infrastructure, is not teaching dependency. 
• Believing government can play a role in teaching illiterate adults to read, so they can get jobs and pay taxes and support their families - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can play a role in helping ex-convicts re-enter society - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can provide job-training to low income youth - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can contribute funds to agencies that teach budgeting, treat addiction, and counsel the homeless - so that more people can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting is not teaching dependency.

These things have nothing to do with teaching dependency.  Quite the opposite.  To use Grover's words, we're working to provide opportunity.

Mitt Romney has made plain what we've always presumed his dark fantasy to be: he believes nearly half of this country comprises a maladjusted, useless, huddled mass. 

Mitt, you have so much to learn about the country you love and want to lead.  Let me see if I can help you down your path of discovery.

• Actually, each and every person on this earth is "... entitled to health care, food, and housing." Applying that to everyone on earth, that's my opinion. But at least for those who live in the US, it's settled law. It's the "life" part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• Even if this imaginary group - this mass of whining, irresponsible parasites - existed, rest assured, you and your fellows at that fundraiser would be the last folks on earth we would turn to for help.  You aren't at any risk of misleading "dependent" people into thinking you would throw us a crumb.
• It doesn't exist, this scary group you describe.  Mitt, you patriot, you celebrator of the American people, you don't know your own country.  And you're missing out.

Your vision of the poor people in this country embarrasses you.  Shouldn't you know, at your age, and with your breadth of life experience, that there are whiny, irresponsible parasites at every income level.  Yes, sir, there are individuals who walk around feeling entitled to be handed something they haven't earned.  One can find them living as inner-city thugs, middle-management loafers, and, well, high-level corporate predators. 

But the underclass you envision as dependent is made up of the hardest working people you'll ever find.  You are actually talking about the backbone of the country, Mitt. 

I would have thought a finance guy would take a look at the numbers before making such proclaimations: If you had stopped to compare the number of people on some kind of assistance with the number of people hunting for work, holding down part time jobs, holding down several jobs, working jobs and going to school, working jobs and raising kids, you'd have realized the only way it adds up is when working people still aren't making enough to eat.  They don't stop working when they get food stamps, Mitt. 

You're talking about the people that wait for the bus and catch rides and go to their service industry jobs and hospital jobs and day care jobs and maintenance jobs and food service jobs.  

Think about what you're saying, Mitt - that half the country is sucking off the other half.  You don't know what you're talking about.  But you're talking about us, and we're offended.

So much disappointment about Obama has been voiced on the Left that I wonder if Mitt Romney could be elected President, due not just to Right Wing, Anybody-But-Obama fervor, but to an infectious apathy among Democrats.  We are not as well mobilized this time around.  We have lost a lot of the energy needed to turn out voters.  It could happen.

I think we have this election under control.  But I don't think we can take it for granted.  We have to remember that it will still take all of us.  When Democrats are excited and willing to get moving, there is better attendance at the polls by voters who rely on the Party infrastructure for support.  The strength of involvement by middle-class liberals affects those who still need to be registered, need rides to the polls on election day, and, infuriatingly, need help getting the proper ID, a process that has to be in motion well before election day. 

So it matters that some of us seem so comfortable saying, "Meh.  I mean, sure, I'll probably still vote for Obama, but it's just not the same.  I'm not about to get out there and do the legwork this time around.  He hasn't earned it."  Right now this kind of passive support strikes me as a luxury of the relatively privileged liberal voter.  It shows a failure to recognize the Democratic Party as the historical, practiced, and practical champion of the disenfranchised voter.

Of course, how to vote, even whether to vote, and whether to campaign is absolutely the personal decision of every American citizen.  And campaigning involves a commitment of time and energy that individuals have to make based on their circumstances.

So I guess my plea is more that we at least be aware that the level of involvement we choose this time around does have consequences.  How much money we send in, whether we spend a few hours volunteering, and even how we talk about this election, all will have an impact on turnout on November 6th.

Again, it wouldn't be fair of me to presume to say how enthusiastic liberals should be about this President.  Some disappointment about his first term is understandable, although I consider it unrealistic, given the unprecedented level of obstruction by Congress we've faced. 

I just hope that folks on the left aren't being naive about what is really at stake.  I have been stunned to hear thinking people say that Romney and Obama aren't that different, or that, since the system is so flawed, it's almost not worth it to stay engaged, or that, since Obama doesn't seem to be the fighter they thought he would be, it doesn't feel important to actively get behind him - as if a Romney presidency would look roughly the same as a second term for Obama.

So in order to highlight some measurable, critical differences in what we would face under Romney, versus under an Obama second term, I'll offer here a quick list of things to contemplate.

• The Affordable Care Act - Romney would use every executive power available to him to dismantle it. 
  
• Veto Power, Part I: Romney would eagerly veto any legislation seeking to raise taxes on millionaires, continue funding for Planned Parenthood, advance clean energy initiatives, invest in infrastructure, maintain the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau or repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.  These are just off the top of my head.
• Veto Power, Part II: If Obama is out of office, we lose his veto on a Farm Bill that makes brutal cuts to the Food Stamp program, legislation sure to come in 2013 to repeal the Voting Rights Act,  legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade, efforts to switch Medicare to a voucher program, proposals to cut funds for the Department of Education, and attempts to weaken Dodd-Frank.  Again, these are just to name what comes to mind immediately.
  
• Foreign Policy Part One, Terrorism: If you don't like the use of drones under Obama, imagine Romney in action.  He has proven himself in many areas to be a secretive, opaque operator.  In the area of security, he's a bellicose hawk.  Now put those two qualities together...
• Foreign Policy Part Two, Iran: Obama has insisted on a patient approach, taking flak for continued reliance on diplomacy and sanctions, standing firm.  Romney prefers bluster, and has shown absolutely no ability to stand up to Right Wing zealots.
• Supreme Court and other federal judgeship appointments: we can't predict what seats will come open in the next four years. 
  
• The Dream Act: forget it.
  
• The Ryan Budget: accept it.
• Citizens United: get used to it.

Regarding our basic economic structure:  Romney, like every business person in the US, benefits from the sound infrastructure we enjoy as a country.  He knows this.  And he denies it.  It is no more possible to prosper as a capitalist in a developing country, even where democracy struggles to exist, than in a communist country.  Mitt Romney has enough worldly experience to know this, but he is cynical enough to voice hostility to government and taxes, in a sweeping, holistic way. 

Like the most conservative members of his Party, he verbally disavows the very idea of the mixed economy in which he has succeeded.  Because citizens operating at his income level are the last to feel any pain from starving our infrastructure, they are willing to push that approach to its extreme, under the auspices of the idea that free-market profits will trickle down. 

Combining that economic ideal with his social conservatism, a Romney presidency would be little different in effect from having someone like Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, or Dick Cheney running the White House.  

If you want to, push Obama hard from the Left on issues you think he's ignoring.  But do it while he's in office, where he can do something about them.  Let's please, please, see what we can all do to keep him there four more years.

I will try to assume that GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, (R - AL), doesn't understand that the specter of the hungry child is real. 
He can't knowingly accept the existence of actual hunger in this country, and still say that it is a colleague's proposal to end that hunger that is immoral.

I'll try to assume that those who decry the rising cost of the federal food stamp program as the problem, rather than the rising need for food stamps, are simply confused.

I have to believe that they truly aren't processing the fact that they are trying to reduce the deficit by forcing desperate people who come to agencies looking for help to literally go away hungry.

Here are just three ways we could adjust the tax code to save more than enough money to make up for what Republicans are suggesting we rob from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, (SNAP), a.k.a. food stamps. 

•  1. Get rid of the rule that allows stock holders to "lease" their holdings to banks for several years, avoiding capitol gains taxes on those funds.  This costs the Treasury billions of dollars a year, far more than the amount we supposedly are being forced to glean from the food stamp program.

•   2. End the practice of allowing corporations to use one value for their stocks for tax deductions and use another value to sell.  This is sort of like the Blue Book value vs the market value of a used car.  You report one to the IRS, and one to potential stock holders, and can actually come out ahead by showing the loss.  Billions lost to the treasury.

•   3. Close the loophole that allows huge, profitable corporations to pass out massive numbers of stock options to executives then claim those as losses to lower their taxable net profits, and even go into a loss, meaning future taxes are plunged even lower.  More billions.

 
These are just three quick examples to show that there is money that can be moved around without touching food stamps.  I know this is a simplistic way to look at it - it's almost silly to set up my argument this way,  I do it to illustrate a point, and there are surely countless easier and more immediate ways to shift funds to avoid cutting spending on a program that literally keeps people from dying. 

There is no better way to ensure we feed the hungry in this country than keeping SNAP funded.  There is no more direct, efficient way to cause people to have food in their mouths.  This is a matter of giving people who don't have enough to eat a debit card they can use to purchase food.  This is about beans, apples, ground beef and milk - it is not theoretical, it is not a legitimate question of policy. 

The program isn't intended to replace efforts to help people get back to work so they don't need food stamps.  Feeding people should not be questioned in discussions about how to improve the economy over time.  I have no problem debating the merits of closing tax loopholes.  I understand there is an argument to made by some on the Right that reducing benefits and advantages enjoyed by the wealthy could stifle investment.  My point here is that there is no legitimate reason to suggest that the only way to reduce the deficit would be to take it out of the food stamp program, or that it would be okay to do so if even if there was no other way.  What could be more urgent than this? 

Let's be fair and assume that conservatives and liberals agree on this; we should feed the hungry.  And that we all look forward to a time when fewer will face hunger.  The axiom "give a man a fish, he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime" resonates with people from all political persuasions.  The majority of us even agree that the government has some role in providing that initial fish, if you will, so while we do argue about the scope of programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and Social Security, you don’t hear many calling to shut them down completely.

Most of us would also concur that in the long run, we’d rather teach someone to fish, allowing as many folks as possible to participate actively in our social and economic systems. 

You wouldn’t know it by listening to the zealots of any ilk, but most of us, across parties and ideologies, want the same things.  For example, you don’t find mainstream Republicans rejecting interstate roads, safety standards for pharmaceuticals, or a federal court system.  You won’t find most Democrats claiming they don’t enjoy material comforts, appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit, or want young people to aspire to their highest goals, whether that means becoming an artist or a wealthy CEO. 

Most of us, left or right, are neither radical socialists, or robber barons.  

It's when we we turn to the question of how to lift millions of poor-but-able adults out of poverty, our viewpoints do start to diverge.  What should we expect of the individual, despite their circumstances and external barriers to success?  What role should government play?  We know that escaping really tough beginnings is statistically unusual.  And I would hope most people know that many, many people in living in poverty labor hard to improve their lot - research bears that out as well.

Again extending the benefit of the doubt, I truly believe that most of us, left or right, want as many folks as possible to be happy, healthy, and productive.  There is plenty of altruism among every political sector, and there is also a healthy self-interest in seeing the country thrive.  So how do we get there?

The conservative “bootstraps” ideal clashes with the liberal “intervention” ideal, and, stoked by opportunistic punditry and entrenched suspicion, animus has flourished.  It’s a complex area, and stereotypes have evolved to the point of of mythology.  We default to lashing out, with “why can’t these people just get a job??” versus “why do you people hate the poor??”  We fall prey to cynical voices, shrieking that heartless conservatives want to eat caviar while hungry babies cry, or that smarmy liberals want feckless thugs to revel in lives of state-sponsored ease.  

In reality, it is possible for well-meaning people (to paraphrase the old saying) to differ on how to best teach someone to fish.

Some of the misunderstanding may come from of a lack of awareness about the differences between the kind of “situational poverty” that has come out of the recession, as opposed to the more prevalent “generational poverty” that has existed in the US for well over a century.  The most promising remedies to these two very different problems are not the same.  Add that to the fact that poverty is an emotional issue, and that our vocabulary about it has been ravaged by cable news and talk radio, and you have ordinary people with opposing viewpoints seeing each other as immoral lunatics.  

If we could tone down the demagoguery, we could learn to apply the best aspects of both approaches:

• An authentic emphasis on job-creation and recovery could be applied to help those devastated by the economic collapse. 
  
• Robust federal investment into ravaged communities could ease suffering from chronic poverty, and provide a way out.

While Republicans have been forced by a few into espousing radical theories, support for their classic ideas is widely distributed across ideologies.
Eliminating pointless and outmoded regulations allows businesses to use increased revenue to hire more people.
Tax breaks for small business encourage new ventures and expansion of existing operations. 
Federally-funded social programs should be accountable and transparent, and evaluated for effectiveness. 
Without the right formatting, ample assistance programs run the risk of encouraging dependency.

Democrats have been pushed to fight tooth and nail to protect basic entitlements, so their demands may have come to sound strident and one-dimensional.  But the desire is not to simply truck in endless supplies of free goods and services to poor communities, achieving nothing but stasis.
The desire is to provide training, skills-building, support services, encouragement, and access to opportunity, to people who aren’t getting it elsewhere. 
The idea is that people naturally want to better and support themselves. 
That social programs are an investment. 
That by funding the teaching of literacy, job skills, effective parenting, family-budgeting and health management, the country will profit from a stronger and more productive citizenry.  

In any case, we’ll need to re-learn how to work together as soon as possible, because the country can only afford so much fish.

Let's get in campaign mode - maybe it will even be fun!  Obama added a little enticement in his speech in Osawatomie, Kansas yesterday.  Newsflash: he's not planning to try to do this without the base.

A great thing about the left is the diversity of our viewpoints.  The forceful voices of the most radical are indispensable in keeping our leaders honest and pulling them from the natural centrism of most successful politicians.  But the reality is that first term Presidents in America have to fit governing in with politicking, instead of the other way around.  So when we get someone who will substantively - if not perfectly - promote liberal values, we need to facilitate a second term.  There we can expect to see bolder action on progressive initiatives.  The good news with Obama is, I don't think that's going to be such a bitter pill to swallow.
 

Yesterday he made a speech in Kansas that sounded like a bellwether.  I was impressed with the clarity of the liberal vision he espoused.  For all the hand-wringing about his socialistic tendencies for the right, we on this side know Obama is no revolutionary. 

My friends and readers know that's fine with me - I want an arbitrator and diplomat in the White House.  Partly because I know we are unlikely to ever see a radical leftist there.  But partly because I'm not sure that "US Commander in Chief" is the most appropriate office for a radical of any brand to hold. 

But even my compatriots who are purer in philosophy than I am should be able to get excited about reelecting Obama if he keeps talking like he did yesterday.

It was a long speech.  I have provided copious quotes here; passages that illustrate philosophy and policy positions.  For the examples, details, supporting information, and statistics Obama used, read the whole speech here, or watch it here.

• "...this is not just another political debate. This is the defining issue of our time. This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and for all those who are fighting to get into the middle class. Because what's at stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, secure their retirement. Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules."
• "...this isn't the first time America has faced this choice. At the turn of the last century, when a nation of farmers was transitioning to become the world's industrial giant, we had to decide: Would we settle for a country where most of the new railroads and factories were being controlled by a few giant monopolies that kept prices high and wages low? Would we allow our citizens and even our children to work ungodly hours in conditions that were unsafe and unsanitary? Would we restrict education to the privileged few? Because there were people who thought massive inequality and exploitation of people was just the price you pay for progress."
• "(Theodore) Roosevelt disagreed.  He knew that the free market has never been a free licence to take whatever you can from whomever you can. He understood the free market only works when there are rules of the road that ensure competition is fair and open and honest. And so he busted up monopolies, forcing those companies to compete for consumers with better services and better prices. And today, they still must. He fought to make sure businesses couldn't profit by exploiting children or selling food or medicine that wasn't safe. And today, they still can't.And in 1910, Teddy Roosevelt came here to Osawatomie and he laid out his vision for what he called a New Nationalism. 'Our country,' he said, 'means nothing unless it means the triumph of a real democracy … of an economic system under which each man shall be guaranteed the opportunity to show the best that there is in him.'  Now, for this, Roosevelt was called a radical. He was called a socialist – even a communist. But today, we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what he fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour work day and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.
• "...there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let's respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. "The market will take care of everything," they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes – especially for the wealthy – our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn't trickle down, well, that's the price of liberty.
  Now, it's a simple theory. And we have to admit, it's one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That's in America's DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. But here's the problem: It doesn't work. It has never worked. It didn't work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It's not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the 50s and 60s. And it didn't work when we tried it during the last decade. I mean, understand, it's not as if we haven't tried this theory."
• "We simply cannot return to this brand of "you're on your own" economics if we're serious about rebuilding the middle class in this country. We know that it doesn't result in a strong economy. It results in an economy that invests too little in its people and in its future. We know it doesn't result in a prosperity that trickles down. It results in a prosperity that's enjoyed by fewer and fewer of our citizens."
• "...gaping inequality gives lie to the promise that's at the very heart of America: that this is a place where you can make it if you try. We tell people – we tell our kids – that in this country, even if you're born with nothing, work hard and you can get into the middle class. We tell them that your children will have a chance to do even better than you do. That's why immigrants from around the world historically have flocked to our shores.And yet, over the last few decades, the rungs on the ladder of opportunity have grown farther and farther apart, and the middle class has shrunk. You know, a few years after World War II, a child who was born into poverty had a slightly better than 50-50 chance of becoming middle class as an adult. By 1980, that chance had fallen to around 40%. And if the trend of rising inequality over the last few decades continues, it's estimated that a child born today will only have a one-in-three chance of making it to the middle class – 33%."
• "(This is) not a future that we have to accept, because there's another view about how we build a strong middle class in this country – a view that's truer to our history, a vision that's been embraced in the past by people of both parties for more than 200 years. It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America. It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all of society's problems. It is a view that says in America we are greater together – when everyone engages in fair play and everybody gets a fair shot and everybody does their fair share."
• "The truth is we'll never be able to compete with other countries when it comes to who's best at letting their businesses pay the lowest wages, who's best at busting unions, who's best at letting companies pollute as much as they want. That's a race to the bottom that we can't win, and we shouldn't want to win that race. Those countries don't have a strong middle class. They don't have our standard of living.The race we want to win, the race we can win is a race to the top – the race for good jobs that pay well and offer middle-class security. Businesses will create those jobs in countries with the highest-skilled, highest-educated workers, the most advanced transportation and communication, the strongest commitment to research and technology."
• "...we need to meet the moment. We've got to up our game. We need to remember that we can only do that together. It starts by making education a national mission – a national mission. Government and businesses, parents and citizens. In this economy, a higher education is the surest route to the middle class. The unemployment rate for Americans with a college degree or more is about half the national average. And their incomes are twice as high as those who don't have a high school diploma. Which means we shouldn't be laying off good teachers right now – we should be hiring them. We shouldn't be expecting less of our schools –- we should be demanding more. We shouldn't be making it harder to afford college – we should be a country where everyone has a chance to go and doesn't rack up $100,000 of debt just because they went. In today's innovation economy, we also need a world-class commitment to science and research, the next generation of high-tech manufacturing. Our factories and our workers shouldn't be idle. We should be giving people the chance to get new skills and training at community colleges so they can learn how to make wind turbines and semiconductors and high-powered batteries. And by the way, if we don't have an economy that's built on bubbles and financial speculation, our best and brightest won't all gravitate towards careers in banking and finance. Because if we want an economy that's built to last, we need more of those young people in science and engineering. This country should not be known for bad debt and phony profits. We should be known for creating and selling products all around the world that are stamped with three proud words: Made in America."
• "...we have to rethink our tax system more fundamentally. We have to ask ourselves: Do we want to make the investments we need in things like education and research and high-tech manufacturing – all those things that helped make us an economic superpower? Or do we want to keep in place the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country? Because we can't afford to do both. That is not politics. That's just math...so far, most of my Republican friends in Washington have refused under any circumstance to ask the wealthiest Americans to go to the same tax rate they were paying when Bill Clinton was president."
• "This isn't about class warfare. This is about the nation's welfare. It's about making choices that benefit not just the people who've done fantastically well over the last few decades, but that benefits the middle class, and those fighting to get into the middle class, and the economy as a whole.
  Finally, a strong middle class can only exist in an economy where everyone plays by the same rules, from Wall Street to Main Street. As infuriating as it was for all of us, we rescued our major banks from collapse, not only because a full-blown financial meltdown would have sent us into a second Depression, but because we need a strong, healthy financial sector in this country.  But part of the deal was that we wouldn't go back to business as usual. And that's why last year we put in place new rules of the road that refocus the financial sector on what should be their core purpose: getting capital to the entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and financing millions of families who want to buy a home or send their kids to college.  Now, we're not all the way there yet, and the banks are fighting us every inch of the way. But already, some of these reforms are being implemented... (T)he vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals, they want to do right by their customers. They want to have rules in place that don't put them at a disadvantage for doing the right thing. And yet, Republicans in Congress are fighting as hard as they can to make sure that these rules aren't enforced."
• "We still have a stake in each other's success. We still believe that this should be a place where you can make it if you try. And we still believe, in the words of the man who called for a New Nationalism all those years ago, 'The fundamental rule of our national life,' (T. Roosevelt) said, 'the rule which underlies all others – is that, on the whole, and in the long run, we shall go up or down together.'  And I believe America is on the way up."