I had desperately hoped to see a sign from this President, as he weighed the question of whether or not to initiate strikes against Syria, that he is the exceptional leader I have consistently felt him to be.  As he spoke in the Rose Garden today, explaining the two elements of the way he feels we should move forward, I was amazed to observe that he has the ability to surpass even my very high expectations.  

His two-pronged approach to the issue, as described in his remarks today, are one, to communicate his resolve to apply harsh consequences to the Assad regime for the murder of over a thousand of its citizens with poison gas, consequences in the form of missile strikes; and two, to acquiesce to demands that he bring the US Congress into the decision-making process.  

You may not agree with the first part.  Obama's position is that actions taken by Assad in Damascus, using chemical weapons against Syria's own civilian population, including hundreds of children, constitute crimes against humanity so horrific and unique from other types or levels of warfare, that they cannot be ignored.  The President was clear he believes we have an imperative to respond to these actions, separate altogether from any consideration of intervention in Syria's civil war, and separate from the question of regime change.  

You may feel otherwise.  But his decision to withhold an executive order to strike unless and until he has the full support of Congress is beyond reproach.  For those of us who feel on the one hand both skeptical and disempowered by the prospect of another American president making a case for military action, but on the other hand cognizant that what happened in Damascus cannot be ignored, Obama has presented what is perhaps the only acceptable proposition:  if we're going to respond to this somehow, let's decide how to do it together. 

How else would you want a president to resolve a question like this, other than each of us meeting personally with him at the White House to explain exactly what we want to have done? 

Reports from behind the scenes at the White House tell us that over the last 24-48 hours the debate between the President's Cabinet members, national security team and other staff and advisers has been robust, and there was significant sentiment against seeking the support of Congress before taking action. I've read about similar processes occurring in this administration's Oval Office and Situation Room deliberations during the couple of days leading up to the decision to start air strikes over Libya, and before giving the "go" to authorize the operation to get bin Laden.  This President apparently demands a frank diversity of opinion, and afterwards may make a decision flouting the advice of even his closest advisers.  In this case it appears there was much agreement about the need to go forward with strikes against Syria, but a variety of points of view about how far to bring Congress into the process.  Obama went with the approach that relinquishes ultimate control of the final decision.  It should be noted that since Congress does not reconvene until September 9, and he is not asking them to return early to address this, he has chosen not to cheapen his argument for consequences for Assad by implying there is a crucial need to act immediately.  He has also clearly not agreed to seek the approval of Congress as a way to shrink from stating his OWN opinion - his point of view could not be clearer: we should launch missiles at military targets in Syria in order to enforce international norms against the use of chemical weapons.

Whatever you think of that, now your argument must go to Congress.  And make no mistake, members of Congress do read your letters and emails, and do track your phone calls.  Whether the legwork is done by staff, and commentary is sorted into piles of rough agreement, or your communication is discovered to be so compelling, articulate or pertinent that it lands on the Congressperson's desk, none of them are ignored (see my post "Yes, They Do Read Your Letters!" 11/19/11.)  Cynicism about whether they do that to inform campaign messaging or whether they actually care is understandable.  But the argument "they don't care what I have to say" is drastically undermined if you don't say anything.  Over the next ten days, you can spend many hours debating this on Facebook, at the dinner table, or in your own head, but remember that the "representative" part of representative democracy doesn't work without your direct participation.  So take ten minutes out of your facebook time between now and the 9th to contact your Senators, www.senate.gov, and another ten to weigh in with your Representative at www.house.gov. 

MSNBC correspondent Chuck Todd, coming on camera to comment after the President's statement, pointed out how extraordinary it is for Obama to make a decision to seek the approval of Congress before taking action.  Todd noted that for roughly 40 years, since Dick Cheney was pulling strings in the Ford administration, Presidents have continuously sought to concentrate ever more power in the Executive Branch.  The fact that Barack Obama just took a stand in another direction reminds me once again that we are watching a presidency with deep historical significance.

From today's remarks, "...but, having made my decision as Commander in Chief...I am also mindful that I am the President of the world's oldest constitutional democracy.  I've long believed that our power is rooted, not just in our military might, but in our example as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 - Julie Boler

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

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.

Like a lot of my friends, I rode an emotional roller coaster yesterday, from the lead-up to the first Presidential Debate, through the debate itself, to the public evaluation of it afterwards.  But for me, while my highs seemed to match those of my friends, my lows went down a whole different track.  It took me some hours to figure out why. 

The great sports announcer Howard Cosell, a huge fan of boxing for years, famously came to hate the sport for the inhumane toll it took on the bodies and minds of its heroes.  This reaction I’m having to the debate last night is not a Cosell-like awakening to the viciousness of politics – I love politics, and there are plenty of people in government whom I admire for their ability to rise above it as blood sport.  I saw this debate as reasonably robust, but nothing dramatic.  This is more specific: this is a Cosell-like aversion to boxing, and an assertion that a debate is not a boxing match.     

I’ve had as much fun as the next Democrat in the last few days, anticipating the first big match up, simultaneously groaning about and reveling in the counting down, hyping up, handicapping, and ubiquitous use of sports metaphors.  The buildup made me realize how high the stakes of this race feel to a lot of us.  It’s taken on a feeling of more than an election.  It’s personal.  Barack Obama has become a representative of our core beliefs about this country, and the contrast in the two major schools of thought about how to run it is sharply delineated.  It’s the Intervention Team against the Bootstraps Team.  The Diplomats versus the Generals.  Labor versus Management. 

In our most thoughtful moments, many of us are committed to the ideal of balance.  We believe there is critical value in sensible regulation and judicious federal investment, as well as individual initiative and the free market.  But most of us also feel our core principles – our political orientation – to be so firmly rooted in one of those sides over the other that this election has come to feel like a battle between right and wrong. 

My brain tends to read political debates as a collection of arguments with strengths and weaknesses, rather than as a contest that ends with a clear winner.  We have a series of debates and a whole season of appearances and interviews to evaluate candidates, and the final score is tallied by virtue of the vote on Election Day.  I always bristle a little at declarations of clean-cut victory or defeat after debates.  As the one last night ended, I thought it was a really good example of that various-strengths-and-weaknesses combination.  So I was especially thrown by the degree of clarity with which some claimed to view the outcome. 

When Mitt Romney and Barack Obama walked on stage and shook hands, I saw a moment of real warmth.  They shook hands longer than required, smiled broadly, and spoke more than a couple of words.  I was moved by that, thinking something about our country that would still be true even if that moment I witnessed was more manners than feeling: we ought to cherish the nature of the society we have built.  Even in our incessant conflict, we are civilized.  We spar, but with ideas.  Every day we watch citizens in other regions brutalized by thugs for their commitment to fragile democracies, paying in blood for the chance to advance ideas.   Last night, we watched a face-off of the two lead representatives of our diametrically opposed parties.  They vie for our most coveted and powerful political position, yet we have managed to protect it from being taken by force.  The candidates greeted each other graciously, and proceeded to advance their appeals with words.  Such moments provide fleeting reminders that we have created something strong and beautiful here, and no matter what happens in November, we’ll be okay. 

Governor Romney was more self-assured than usual; less awkward and defensive.  His thoughts seemed clear, and he was willing to commit to a point of view, at least for the setting of that debate.  He was assertive and convincing, and if I were impartial, and less at odds with what he said, I’m sure I would have thought he acquitted himself well.

On the other hand, each time the President spoke, I heard a depth of understanding that can only come with direct experience in grappling specifically with the problems at hand: that’s the inherent advantage of the incumbent.  Obama also funneled that understanding into lay terms effectively.  He conveyed an exposure to the inner workings of the Oval Office, conviction about the way forward, and a connection to the average American’s concerns.

Romney conveyed no less conviction, and if his understanding of the job description of President is more theoretical, he didn’t sound ignorant.  For the first time in his campaign I saw some passion – a more energetic expression of the desire to contribute.  But in the context of his candidacy as a whole, I remain convinced that he doesn't have any grasp of what the country needs.  And even if I had been out of the loop for a year and had only this debate to measure him by, as a liberal Democrat my approach to problem-solving is so different from his that I wouldn’t have any interest in giving him a shot as president.  In other words, while he presented himself better than usual, there were no surprises in his proposals.  He did an adequate job of describing an approach I happen to disagree with fervently.

I haven’t been out of the loop, though, and have observed him for many months.  I can only attribute his enthusiasm last night to the fact that he is a goal-oriented, driven professional.  Importantly, like so many Americans these days I know enough about the issues to observe that he was making false claims, contradicting his own assertions, dodging questions about specifics, and painting a picture of mistakes and failures on the President's part that don’t match the facts.    

If we are to evaluate debate performance partly on the basis of facial expression, I read Obama as quietly offended by the latter phenomena.  It is no secret that I am a partisan for the president.  I was in his corner early on, I was his apologist during the roughest months of his first term, and I have only grown more sympathetic to the challenges he faces, and ever more confident in his ability to meet them.  So it was with a feeling of almost affectionate allegiance that I wanted him to react powerfully to Romney, who was staking a claim to a superior grasp of our country’s problems and a greater ability to solve them.  I stood uncomfortably in Obama’s shoes, imagining what it was like to be doing a hard job well, pushing forward, seeing steady results, and having an outsider publicly attack your work from every angle, suggesting you have no idea what you’re doing.  It must be even more frustrating when such attacks are made with bluster, and without integrity or merit. 

But this is what a president signs up for.  You get eight years, in two increments, and at the halfway point you have to put yourself out there and take on all comers.  As a country, we require that you face each other – incumbent and challenger - on equal footing.  We ask you to stand on a stage both literal and figurative, and by turns defer to each others right to speak.  We have no royalty here.

In that respect I think it’s absolutely right and laudable that when the President gathered his thoughts to respond to the Governor, we heard less fire and more practical disagreement with Governor Romney’s positions.  He didn’t counter Romney’s excesses of self-assurance.  What he did do was point out false claims, and - as time allowed - reiterate his own positions. 

I was aghast later to hear condemnation for Obama’s "inability to realize he was on the ropes” and “refusal to come back swinging.”  Certainly, he should get feedback from his team about how to be more nimble in his responses next time.  He’ll need to practice how to counter the briskly-paced inaccuracies and deceptively-appealing presentation of this new iteration of Romney the candidate.  He should quit writing so much and keep his face turned up.  But the last thing we need to see is a fight. 

Barack Obama is not a boxer.  I personally don’t want a boxer as a president, and in 2008, neither did a majority of Americans.  Either that is still the case, or we lose this one.  But the solution is not to ask for a whole new version of Barack Obama.  Yes, he’s going to have to step it up somehow if this race gets closer.  No, he doesn’t get to coast.  He has to be persuasive.  But I think we can count on him to do all that.  The man is clearly competitive by nature, and in no short supply of healthy ego.  He is creative, good-humored, and determined.  Interestingly, Obama has been dubbed everything from the consummate politician to a poor debater; from a great orator to “too professorial.”  We‘d benefit from realizing he is a little bit of each of those, and trust that his competence, energy and commitment will shine through.

What I would hate most is for us to allow our political optimism to rise and fall on observations of the process from a distance, as though we are sports fans.  It jars me to hear the passion of the ringside coupled with some remove.  The expectation of vicarious victory without participation, as though this is all in the hands of a favorite boxer.  That’s where, to me, the rhetoric of fighting is out of place. 

The President is our representative, and serves at the pleasure of the electorate.  We need him to advocate for us.  But we will do him, ourselves, and the country a grave disservice if we fall into the trap of 2008: “You are our hope – go forth and make this happen.  We will be the fans and the analysts.”  How many of those railing against a weak performance by the president last night are also the ones who said this year, “Look, I’ll probably vote for him again, but I’m not going to volunteer like last time.  I’ll give him another shot, but not my time and money.  The magic isn’t there this time.  I may not like Romney, but I’m not about to go out and register voters, or sit in a metal chair and make phone calls for Obama.  He hasn’t earned it.” 

If we’re going to see this as a sport, let’s at least shut down the boxing ring and make it a team sport. 

Using numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, I created the chart above.  It shows the unemployment rate as reported each month for the month before.  March, 2009 numbers reflect the first full month the President was in office.

When Bill Clinton turned the keys to the White House over to George W. Bush, he left behind a budget surplus.  By the time GW left office, the economy was a disaster.  Obama and his team came in to a mess we hadn't seen in decades.  They pushed through the stimulus plan - the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act - immediately.  Within months, roughly $800 billion dollars began to roll out to the states.  Tax cuts were arranged and jobs were created in record time.  In October, ten months into the Obama presidency, the unemployment rate peaked at 10%, then finally started to go down.

As you can see from the chart, it was a bumpy road.  Every time the rate went up by .10% point, there was a chorus of cries about "Obama's failed policies."  When it went down, it wasn't fast enough.  But as you can also see, as the "failed policies" had more and more time to take effect, improvements gathered momentum.  The team acted to stabilize the housing market, address crises in Detroit and on Wall Street, and invest in small business. 

And private sector jobs were also added, which takes us to the chart below.

This one was produced by the Obama Campaign, but the numbers are also straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Just the facts.  Again, the President has been accused of failed policies every single month he has been in office, when every single month he has made improvements.  Immediately upon taking office, this administration started us back on the right path.  For the first many months it was a matter of stopping the bleeding. 

Then, between February and March of 2010, we turned a huge corner, going from losing jobs to finally adding jobs to the positive.  That day should have been celebrated with popping corks across the country.  Do you remember it?  Do you remember Obama getting credit for a miraculous achievement?  Far from it - he was scoffed at for using the word "recovery" in a speech.  If you can draw a better picture of a recovery than the ones in these charts, send it my way.

When I study these charts, not only do I conclude that it is flatly not true that Obama has not reversed the economic disaster we were in, it is even clear that the charge of "not fast enough" is absurd.  The change has been dramatic.  See for yourself.

For the most recent version of the jobs chart, with an interactive application you don't want to miss, go to Obama For America's jobs page.

To check my numbers, see the tables on this page at the Bureau of Labor Statistics website.

(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.

To be fair, Mitt Romney has to lie about President Obama's position on work requirements for welfare. 

The President supports work requirements for welfare.  And that position doesn't match the phony image of Obama that Romney wants to portray. 



This was an easy calculation for Romney campaign staffers.  A lie that confirms a prejudice is more powerful than evidence that exposes the lie.  This particular ad is widely repudiated by nonpartisan fact-checkers, but its unique characteristics blunt the force of its poor ratings: the ad is officially sanctioned by Mitt Romney himself.  It is one of the most expertly-produced campaign ads of the season.  And it is exquisitely designed for a crude, passionate response.

A saving grace for reality, though, is the simplicity of this ad's fraudulence, and the accessibility of the truth.  The original document in question, a July 12 memo from the Department of Health & Human Services, a memo in which Mitt Romney claims President Obama "quietly removed the work requirements from welfare," is right here.

The ready availability of the memo presents a rare opportunity for voters to be their own fact-checkers.  As you read it, hold these facts in mind: 

• Mitt Romney's ad states: "Obama gutted the welfare work requirement." 
  
• As you will see, Obama simply turned that question over to the states. 
  
• Mitt Romney's ad states: "I will restore the work requirements to welfare."
• As you will see, there is nothing to restore.  The requirements are in place.
• Mitt Romney, was one of the Republican governors requesting these waivers in May of 2005.  (Interestingly, the list also includes Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, Jeb Bush, and Haley Barbour.)

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.

Catholic institutions should not have to pay for contraception for their employees.  It's a clear violation of the First Amendment.  This is one of those most difficult of issues we face  - the delicate balance between the Constitutional protection we enjoy from having any religion imposed on public life, and the protection we count on for any religion to practice its teachings freely.  Sometimes I think this is one of the most important clauses - at least it requires the most of all of us to think through, be careful, and imagine how we would want specific laws and rules pertaining to this issue implemented by succeeding generations.

Obama and Sibelius made a drastic error in refusing to grant the Catholic church an exemption from providing free birth control to its institutions' employees.  I kept waiting to hear arguments that would convince me otherwise, but I still can't see it any other way.  I appreciate the thoughts and concerns of people on the left that I have discussed it with, and I believe they are advocating for women, and not just politicking.  But I just haven't heard a single thing that refutes the idea that this is a very dangerous First Amendment imbalance, that if implemented, would not be justified or legal.  (As I write this, Obama has made a reversal of sorts, for which I am glad.  But it's hard right now to say if the switch is to a plan that really relieves the church of having to take responsibility for providing contraception.)

As I was reading commentary about this on various websites, it wasn't Republican Congresspersons who convinced me, unsurprisingly.  They apparently aren't worried about the votes of centrist women, or centrist men who care about women's issues.  They aren't even making a stab at acknowledging that we as a society have an interest in seeing that women have as much access as possible to comprehensive health care.  I would think that even apolitical, moderate citizens, if they don't have a religious objection to birth control, are likely to see that there are a couple of opposing interests to be weighed here, so I don't know why Republicans aren't giving that thought the time of day.  No, they went straight to:  this is a secular attack from an unholy socialist President, intent on suppressing religion in the US.  Their infuriating hyperbole embarrasses them - they don't need it here, so what's the point?  They needed hyperbole to make people think the Obama "War on Christmas" is bad, because it isn't real, so hyperbole is all they have. But since this is a real issue, I don't know why they feel they have to resort to the "War on Religion" rhetoric.  Yuck.

What actually confirmed my immediate gut feeling that this would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state was the rationale for the rule provided by people on the left.  A piece of Kevin Drum's blog on Mother Jones sums up the argument.  (My comments are in brackets.): 

"(I) support the Obama administration's decision to require health care plans to cover contraception, as well as its decision to permit only a very narrow exemption for religious organizations.  (Here's why.)

• In any case like this, you have to look at two separate issues: (1) How important is the secular public purpose of the policy? And (2) how deeply held is the religious objection to it?

[Agreed.  So far so good - those are exactly the things we should look at.]

• On the first issue, I'd say that the public purpose here is pretty strong. Health care in general is very clearly a matter of broad public concern; treating women's health care on a level playing field with men's is, today, a deep and widely-accepted principle; and contraception is quite clearly critical to women's health. Making it widely and easily available is a legitimate issue of public policy.

[Agreed on the sentiment, absolutely.  Access to contraception is a critical public health concern.  Barriers to access include lack of information, lack of resources like cash and transportation, and difficulty finding service providers.  But it is legitimate, when the First Amendment stakes are this high, to consider degrees of hardship.  I am willing to factor in that we are talking about women in the workforce here.  Even though that doesn't guarantee they have much money or reliable transportation or understanding of where to go, those are things that could be addressed by the government in other ways.  The big box pharmacies sell generic birth control for $4-5, and non-profit agencies provide them for free, so its a matter of getting referrals and getting there. 
(back to Drum's quote)]

• "On the second issue, I simply don't believe that the religious objection here is nearly as strong as critics are making it out to be. As I've mentioned before, even the vast majority of Catholics (underline his) don't believe that contraception is immoral. Only the formal church hierarchy does."

(end quote)

The latter statement provides a precise example of why government has to stay out of religion.  The number of people within a religion's ranks who practice what their leaders preach has nothing to do with the law.  And he displays an ignorance of a piece of Catholic culture that is important here.  (Why wouldn't he be ignorant of it, but that's why the public should be hands off with the private.)

Individual members of a religion - even lots of them - may feel out of sync with the hierarchy's teachings, but they should still be able to expect their church to have full legal protections.  There is probably scarcely a religious tenet that isn't questioned, opposed, or just not followed by some of the members of its church.  Whose business is that, and what does it have to do with respecting the legal rights of that church? 

For Catholics, coming to grips with the most conservative teachings of their church in real life application is not a new question.  I come from a family of eight.  As much as that is a reflection of Catholic teachings being followed, the fact that I don't come from a family of twelve reflects that (thankfully!) at some point my parents obviously did not follow the Churches teachings.  (The old joke was, what do you call people that use the rhythm method?  Parents.)  Catholic teachings oppose divorce, too, but Catholics do get divorced.  These are things we have to leave up to them to work out.

Regardless of what my readers think about how individual Catholics work out their faith in their own lives, the law says their church has a right to practice its teachings.  I am not a religious person, and I am pro-choice and certainly pro-contraception.  But I have to admit to some respect for the consistency of the Catholic belief system about the sanctity of life.  They are steadfastly opposed to the taking of any life as they define it.  I personally have different views about when a fetus becomes a person, and whether a person has a right to choose to die, and other such specifics.  But what I'm saying is, they are so devoted to this concept that it is central to their beliefs, and it is consistent.  They are against the death penalty, against the killing of enemy combatants that don't present an imminent threat, and only accept war in a self-defense capacity.  What of individual Catholics practicing birth control?  That is personal, very personal.  I can guarantee you something:  while it may be difficult for a practicing Catholic, working for a Catholic employee, to have to get a hold of their own birth control, not on the company's dime, you will have a hard time finding Catholics who want these employers to be compelled to offer it.  It will be in those numbers that you will see the mistake the left is making in trying to argue, "no trust me, this is what these people want, most of them use birth control anyway."

Again, I need to take some time to look at this recent reversal on Obama's part.  I was going to change this post drastically in light of it, but I have a feeling there will be a few more rounds before it's settled, so I will post this part for now.  I think he made a huge blunder politically, and I'm not sure the reversal solves anything yet.  I hope I am overestimating what a problem it will be, but it's going to be at least an ugly fight. 

If this revision doesn't solve anything for the Catholic leadership, I hope we will keep working on it.  There is some real compromise that could happen here.  Would the church be willing to provide an allowance for discretionary health spending?  Sort of like a flexible spending account, but not out-of-pocket?  Or would the state be willing to partner with employees' current providers to defray the cost of birth control for employees of exempted institutions?  We can make it work.  

I'm off to research the revision - hopefully it provides the compromise we need.  Look for an update soon._

The Plan B issue is a hot topic, and a tough call.  I'm going out on a limb with my view.  Let me have it, but I ask only one thing.  Note that I'm not saying I'm sure this was the right decision, just that I think I know what might have been behind it. 

The glaring mistake on the part of the administration is one of not owning the decision and clearly communicating a rationale.  I remember this problem so well from the early part of their term, about everything from not closing Gitmo to not putting the birther thing to rest by producing a birth certificate.  I think there are equal parts arrogance and good faith there, as in "look, we shouldn't have to walk everyone through this - they elected me to do the right thing, and I'm doing my best, based on deeply help principles, and it's hard enough dealing with the onslaught of decisions, let alone having to go out there and explain every move I make."  Really bad approach, and they have obviously absorbed some feedback about it, and they have done better.  But they aren't doing better on this one, so everyone is left once again with a big wtf. 

After a good 24 hours of struggling to understand what the heck is up with this action, this what I think is going on. 

The science is in, the risks are low.  I have no doubt that Sebelius and Obama understand that - they aren't ignoring it, they are putting it into a bigger context.  (The wailing that this decision is some kind of indictment of Obama's commitment to science is dogmatic overreaction.  This administration is in no danger of disregarding evidenced-based research, and since there are several vying for the White House who are very happy to do that, which is a critical concern, we need to save our energy to direct it there.)

Rather, I think the administration is thinking that it's not as simple a question of whether Plan B is as safe as Tylenol.  Tylenol is used for headaches, Plan B is used for pregnancy prevention.  Pregnancy risks only exist for people who are sexually active.  Girls 16 and under who are sexually active need support, information, counseling - at the very least, they need attention.  If the crisis of a birth control lapse facilitates the girl reaching out to an adult in some way, that's an opportunity.

Is this good thinking, practical, best practice, a well-conceived approach?  I don't know.  I'd have to think about it more, and talk to several people I know who have done a lot of work/thinking about teen pregnancy.  (Carol, Angie, I want to know your take!). 

I'm just saying that how Plan B is labeled re: the age of girls purchasing it was an issue for this administration, and they had misgivings about lowering the age to the extent they stepped in in a very assertive way. 

And yes Obama, this is one you need to walk us through your thinking on.

I predict he will eventually do that, and agree or not, it will be easier to acknowledge this move was based on values principles rather than politics.