WHO SIDES WITH WOMEN?

The eagerness with which Republicans jumped on a careless remark by a minor "Democratic strategist" last week should not be allowed to deflect attention from their broadly anti-feminine platform. It is patently absurd to put forward the argument, on the basis of this remark, that Democrats fail to honor motherhood or the real, daily grind of work demanded of mothers who choose to stay at home and take care of the family.

The rhetoric of the "war on women" is, to my mind, almost equally absurd. What is clear, however, is that Republican positions and policies are antithetical to the interests of women in a number of important ways. Along with opposition to legislation requiring equal pay for equal work, the attack on funding for Planned Parenthood, on a woman's right to make choices for her own well-being and that of her family, and on programs that provide for women's health care are the only most obvious examples. As damaging, though, are the budgetary constraints on the provision of child care for mothers who choose to work, whether or not of their own volition and, for the poor, of food stamps and other safety net programs that affect women more immediately than their male counterparts.

We thought to have settled many of these matters fifty years ago. The reactionary rhetoric and policies of today's Republicans will ring hollow, if not threatening, to the ears of every thoughtful woman voter, and the feminist movement has helped to create generations of thoughtful, well-educated women who can stand up for themselves. Since his early action in signing equal pay legislation, the president has time and again established his credentials as a supporter of gender equality and the basic human rights that women have worked hard to earn in this country, and continue to struggle for in many parts of the world. Much more than his Republican challenger, he has earned the support of independent women voters, and I trust that his respect for them will be returned in November.

A FAREWELL TO SANTORUM...

... and a hello, once more, to the politics of division, rage, and hatred. (Cross posted to The Buddha Diaries.)

Well, I'm going to say it... metta to him, but I'm happy not to have to be listening to his right-wings mantras any more. Santorum spoke to the true believers of the far right, and his views on social issues were evidently catnip to extremists in the Christian world, whether evangelical or Catholic. I wish him well, particularly in his touching devotion to his infirm little daughter... but I'm glad to see him gone from the presidential race. He promises to continue the fight, so we can safely assume that this is not the end of his brand of radicalism, but we won't be hearing it quite so loudly as before. It now remains for Newt Gingrich to keep the far right's banner waving--and for the beleaguered Mitt Romney to attempt to back out of the corner of mean-spirited conservatism in which the rightists have managed to entrap him.

In the meantime, our President maintains a voice that sounds--to this listener, at least--like that of sweet reason. He'll need to be prepared for an onslaught of the kind that Romney and his surrogates have used--with murderous efficiency, be it said--against his Republican opponents. Backed by vast resources of unrestricted money, these people will flood the airwaves and the television screens with lies and propaganda in the desperate attempt to protect their interests against those of the vast majority of Americans. They will use every swift-boat tactic they can imagine to attract uncritical minds to their cause. They will not be ashamed to stoop to the appeal to irrational prejudice, ignorance, even hatred. We know that there is literally nothing they will not do in order to have their way.

I have always believed that Obama has an excellent sense of timing. He is remarkably cool under pressure. An agile political fighter, he has the skill of the martial arts expert to use the weight and power of the opponent to his advantage. He will need those assets in the coming months, against the onslaught fueled by the Republican obsession with his removal from the White House. And he will need the consistent backing those of us who find his vision and policies more palatable than those of his opponents.

In the meantime, between now and the Republican convention, may we hear a little less of the sulphorously hot air coming from the far reaches of the right? Please...

DINNER TABLE POLITICS

So there we were, eight at the table, talking politics. It was one of four round tables set up for a celebration of the Passover seder, where talk often turns to politics. On this occasion I refrained from joining in, in part because I never find the right words in such a circumstance—I think better on the keyboard than on my feet—and in part because it would have seemed futile. Such discussions rarely lead to a change of opinion. So I kept quiet. But I have been thinking about that discussion ever since.

Good left-leaning people all—some further to the left than others—our group was indulging in the familiar luxury of damning the president with faint praise. The focus was particularly on the economy, and particularly upon his choice of advisors to deal with the dire situation he had inherited from the disaster of the Bush years, the Goldman Sachs gang. The argument has been repeated so often that it is by now an accepted truth. Or perhaps a cliché. The president erred terribly in appointing men who had, in their recently previous lives, been a prominent part of the culture that created the problem. In so doing, he allied himself with the corrupt elite that had brought us to the brink of disaster and poisoned the system for everyone except the elite themselves, the obscenely wealthy and the profiteers.

It’s an emotionally appealing argument. It satisfies that inner sense of distrust, indignation, anger and disempowerment—feelings that I absolutely share. But then I think to myself, who better to understand and address the problem than those who helped create it? And I think of the old adage, “the proof of the pudding”… It doesn’t matter much who the cooks in the kitchen are, what matters is the result. And while we may gripe a good deal about the speed of the recovery, there seems to be little doubt now that it is taking place. A British economist on Sixty Minutes last night, pretty much as an aside as she compared the situation here to the one in Europe, used a (to me) surprising word like “spectacular” to describe the American recovery. Even the columnist Paul Krugman, a powerful advocate for bolder steps than Obama was able to make, acknowledges the fact of the improving situation—though he never fails to add that it could have been faster and more robust.

Okay, I agree with Krugman. I wish the steps taken from the earliest days of the Obama administration had been bolder, more decisive. But politics is famously the art of the possible, and I’m in no position to know what was then possible to achieve, and what sheer pragmatism might have dictated. By the same token, I agree most heartily with those who wished for a single-payer system, Medicare for all, and who were disappointed that the “affordable health care” measure did not go much further than it does. But then I consider how fierce the opposition was, and how virulent the animosity—not merely on the part of very far right-wing Republicans, but on the part of a significant number of Americans who were persuaded, rightly or wrongly, by the propaganda from the right. I would personally have wished for the president to hold out for the principle, but am in admittedly no position to judge whether that position would have scuttled the whole deal. After a century of failure and frustration, we finally managed to arrive at the beginnings of a health care system for all. It seems to me counter-productive, now, as we face the presidential election in November, to make light of that achievement, or to pronounce it a failure.

I spoke of the luxury of “damning with faint praise.” It’s what we Democrats, in our righteousness, do best. We have done it to too many of our leaders, who fail to live up to our exacting standards and our idealistic expectations. Like all luxuries, it comes with a steep price tag—in this case, potentially, the loss of the White House in November to a Republican contender. For all that he has failed to do, or perhaps done wrongly, Obama remains consistent in the articulation of his vision of a more just, egalitarian America, a country that honors and supports its creative entrepreneurs and its technological visionaries; a country committed to the education of its young and the protection of its most vulnerable; a country tolerant of the religious views and protective of the individual rights of all its citizens. Mitt Romney—if he indeed is the choice of Republicans—is equally consistent in his devotion to the interests of the wealthiest among us and a narrowly conservative, if not repressive view of the social issues that affect us all.

In the face of this, and of the virulence of the hatred directed at the president personally, faint praise will not get Obama re-elected in the Fall. As Ellie rightly pointed out at our dinner table, even a hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-him attitude contributes only to a thoughtless dissemination of the poison in the already too swollen ranks of the thoughtless in this country. Those of us who believe in the vision of this President must be willing to work, and with enthusiasm, for his re-election; or to surrender to the forces of those we believe to be dangerously misguided.

NOT SO GRAND

I was reading a headline this morning using the acronym GOP for the Republican Party. And I thought to myself, what's so grand about the Grand Old Party any more? It seems to me that it's a Petty Od Party, a POP, with small ideas and mean-minded policies for the vast majority of Americans. If there's anything grand in what they have been putting forward as ideas in their primaries and, more recently, their budget, it's a grand life-style for the already very rich. For the rest of us, not so much.

It happened that I also watched a documentary last night about the building of the Panama Canal. There was a grand idea, if ever there was one, and it came about because it became the grand vision of Teddy Roosevelt--a grand old Republican, if ever there was one. The empire building, the assumption of American exceptionalism and American superiority may be questionable, in the light of history--just as European colonialism. But the idea was certainly a grand one, as was the achievement, still one of the greatest engineering feats in human history.

I do not side with those who would deny funds to our space program, and I am greatly saddened by its currently much reduced ambitions. I think we need grand ideas, not only to expand our horizons and keep us moving forward into an exciting future; but, in the case of the space program, to stimulate the inventiveness and creativity so essential to our economic health. Thinking small brings small results, and it seems to me that we have been thinking smaller and smaller as a nation in the recent past; we talk too much about what we can't do, out of fear---or budgetary restraint--and too little about what we might do if we could envision it. We have become so risk-averse, so accustomed to the knee-jerk "no" that we have forgotten how to say "yes!"

All very well to talk about the individual effort, about privatization. The truth is that the resources available only to the collective power of government are sufficient to support a truly grand idea, a truly grand vision of the future. That government today is more and more reluctant to put its weight behind the big ideas does not bode well for the future of this country as a major presence on the world stage. We are likely, it seems to me, to go the way of past empires, into the trash bin of history.

I have caught glimpses of great ideas from our current President, for example in calling for support for research and experimentation with alternative energy sources. Which is one more good reason to let him loose in a second term, with less to lose and much more to gain. It's my belief that he envisions greatness, but that his vision is hampered by the picayune--and by the practical contingencies of administration. Let's give him a chance to achieve the greatness of his promise.

SUPREME DISCONTENT

I confess to ignorance about the law, but I do have an ounce or two of common sense and it seems to me that common sense would not be out of place in the legal world. This said, I noted with some bemusement the US Supreme Court's 5 - 4 decision that it's right and proper for police and jail authorities to strip search even those brought in for the slightest offense--and even when those offenders prove to have been wrongly apprehended. This was the case before the court: a man brought in for an unpaid fine that had actually been paid long before. Instead of the apology he was due, he was rewarded with a humiliating strip search--on two separate occasions--and kept in jail for six days. The Supreme Court justices, in their wisdom, ruled that such searches are legal no matter how trivial the reason for the arrest.

Like many of my fellow liberals, I have been dismayed by many of the Supreme Court's actions in the past. From my point of view, in the only most egregious example, the Bush v. Gore decision gave us a president who led us down a path not only into a disastrous and unnecessary war but also into fiscal disaster by the end of his term. And let's not even talk about Citizens United. I am dreading the announcement of their decision on the health care law. I can't escape the judgment that the five conservative members are guided by political rather than legal considerations. As Maureen Dowd wrote in her rightly devasating New York Times column yesterday: "[The Court] has squandered even the semi-illusion that it is the unbiased, honest guardian of the Constitution. It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes."

It's ironic that these same people and those who supported their appointment were precisely those who fulminated against an "activist" judiciary.

The court reflects this country's increasingly partisan divisions and the rejection of what seems to me no more than common sense in favor of impassioned prejudice. Unelected and seated as they are, for lifetime terms, the justices owe it to the country to limit themselves to the consideration of, precisely, questions of justice, and keep their noses out of policy and politics.

A MAN OF MEASURED RESPONSE

Say what you will about what he has managed--or not managed--to accomplish, I for one am glad to have in the White House a man of measured response. Perhaps that is one of the qualities that infuriate those who hate him--and I must say that I find it very hard to understand them--but in my eyes it is one of his most valuable assets. It's what we need in a President. I hear the word "unflappable."

It would be comic if it were not intended as an insult to hear Barack Obama mistaken for a Muslim. He proclaims himself, unostentatiously, a Christian. I see him as having all the fine qualities of a good Buddhist. Equanimity is one of them.

At least from what we see through the lens of the media, biased as it may be this way or that, he manages to remain calm in every situation. His conduct of our foreign relations seems guided by an equanimous view of every crisis that presents itself. He has refused to be moved to hasty action in the Middle East, where our country's actions in the recent past have led us into a quagmire of troubles. Our military actions in the course of his presidency have been undertaken with careful deliberation and meticulous planning. A good Buddhist would surely call our drone strikes into question, as well the assassination of Al Qaeda leaders; but such dire acts may be the inevitable consequence of hostilities directed against our own country or endangering the lives of innocent people elsewhere in the world. I personally despise violence, but I am not a pacifist. Given the hatred, tyranny and oppression that still to this day abound on our planet, I conclude unhappily that force is sometimes necessary. It's my belief that Obama is judicious in his use of it.

On the political front at home, it seems to me, he is equally judicious. His positions are carefully thought-through in advance and presented with reasoned arguments. He listens respectfully and patiently to opposing views and takes them into account. This past week, he has been restrained, in public at least, in his response to the legal arguments against the greatest legislative achievement of his presidency, the health care bill, and the threat of its nullification by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. One gets the sense that, should this hard-won victory be overturned, he would simply roll up his sleeves and get down to the exploration of another avenue of approach.

The President's response to the media's clamor for his reaction to the racial and political storm around the "Stand Your Ground" killing of that young black man in Florida was a model of compassionate equanimity. Rather than seize the opportunity to vent about the clear injustice of the situation, he chose instead to back away from the political and racial issues and simply express solidarity with the family in their grief and to model the understanding, compassion, and restraint that serve us better, as a nation, than anger, finger-pointing, and hate.

Most remarkable, in my view, is the President's ability to laugh off the increasingly personal attacks that question not only his religious faith but also his good faith as president. As I was saying earlier this week, despite my many disagreements with George W. Bush and, frankly, some barbs I sent his way in my blog, "The Bush Diaries," it never occurred to me to attack him as "UnAmerican," or to suggest that he was working intentionally to destroy this country, as Obama's detractors do. Their hatred seems to know no bounds of reason or common decency. And yet the lies, half-truths and innuendo used by his right-wing opponents seem to faze him not a bit, no more than the attacks that come from the other side of the political spectrum. When he does respond, it is with an even hand, with humor, and entirely lacking in rancor or vindictiveness. He does not allow himself the indulgence of becoming anyone's victim.

I for one appreciate his ability to muster a measured response to everything that besets his presidency, particularly in contrast to the rhetorical excesses and the liberties his current opponents feel free to take with truth. They attribute to him, with apparent impunity, words he never spoke, deeds and intentions he never contemplated, beliefs he never held. That he responds to these attacks with reason and good humor speaks well of him. Another four years in the White House, especially if he gets the support of the more Democratic congress he deserves, will afford him the opportunity to prove the historical importance of his presidency.

"UNAMERICAN"

The front page of yesterday's New York Times carried two pictures of demonstrators with placards. The one on top read "Protect Women's Health." The one below announced that "ObamaCare is UnAmerican." Okay, I can see the part about protecting women's health: that seems like an unobjectionable objective, and one on which we could all, surely, agree--though I suppose some might question whether women's health is at risk. The quibble might be, Why not protect everybody's health?

"ObamaCare is UnAmerican" is another matter, and prompts the question, What could be UnAmerican about seeking to provide health care for those millions of our citizens who have not, until now, enjoyed its benefits? Many of them, indeed, have been specifically excluded from receiving benefits or protection by insurance companies whose interest is exclusively in their bottom line. Many more have been excluded by their inability to afford insurance and by the failure of their employer to provide it for them. Is it UnAmerican to ensure that not the least of us goes unprotected from medical and financial disaster? And not least in consideration of the fact that we all we end up paying for such events anyway, and usually when they have become more troublesome and infinitely more expensive to deal with. Is it UnAmerican to have minimal foresight, even enlightened self-interest at heart?

The placard also prompts a second question: If this is UnAmerican, what, then, is the American approach to health care? Neglect? The free market? One or the other of these. Neglect brings with it all too obvious consequences, including those above: postponement leads only to graver medical problems, the kind that can be addressed only by expensive emergency or acute care--unless we choose simply to let people die, an alternative roundly applauded, as I recall, in one of the Republican debates.

The free market, then; this is the American way. A free market in which insurance companies add their overhead costs to the prospect of already escalating medical expenses and in which, in order to serve their bottom line, they are free to refuse coverage to anyone they choose. In which millions of Americans (the less financially secure, the poor, the unemployed, these, too, are Americans) are left to fend for themselves. In which millions of Americans are constrained, for financial reasons alone, to postpone health care until it becomes a life-threatening emergency, and to deny themselves the benefits of cost-saving preventive care. Is it "American" to be callous about one's fellow citizens? To insist on the more expensive alternative for reasons of pure ideology? Is it American to be so un-smart, so readily submissive to those whose primary purpose is not to provide for their health and welfare, but to make money?

The "UnAmerican" epithet is a weapon most frequently--I might even say exclusively--by partisans on the right. Do lefties resort to calling those who disagree with them "UnAmerican"? Did anyone on the left--no matter how much they may have disliked George W. or disagreed with his policies--think to call him UnAmerican? I search my own conscience for having ever entertained such a thought, still less expressed it. I disagreed with virtually everything he said and did, but I never accused him of saying or doing it with the express intention of harming America. And yet that is what I hear from the right today--and not only from the crazies: I hear it from the mouths of their candidates for President, that Obama's express intention is to run this country into the ground.

I read Tom Friedman's op-ed column, also in yesterday's New York Times, about the political climate in Australia and New Zealand--countries where, it seems, even the right wing is Democratic and where, once debated and passed into law, legislation is not immediately subject to rancorous challenge or repeal. Where, it seems, some measure of sanity still rules. Whither America, I am compelled to wonder, when we are swayed this way and that by such forces of vindictiveness and unreason?