Is America Ready for Another Bush-Clinton Campaign

The growing possibility of another Clinton-Bush race is also something that reflects significant problems with our democracy. In most other countries, the spouse of a former president running against the son and brother of another former president would be prima facie viewed as evidence of structural problems with the country and probably widespread corruption as well. This election will not be seen that way because, well Hillary Clinton is beloved by many Democrats, and Bush can become beloved by many Republicans if he is seen as the guy who can beat Clinton. It is probably, however, worth taking a closer a look about what a Clinton-Bush matchup tells us about about our democracy.

Why Would Paul Ryan Think About Race?

A Republican Party that has over a period of decades removed itself from any close political contact with African Americans not only will naturally have a very poor understanding of that group, but will be committed to the belief that race is no longer an important issue in the US. If race is not an important issue, it is much easier for Republicans to explain away their lack of success with or interest in African American. This contributes to the Republican insistence that racism is a thing of the past and that any suggestion that race or racism is driving a policy or campaign tactics is dismissed as somebody else is playing the race card.

California and the Republican Party

The veritable collapse of the Republican Party in California is not news, but it is worth considering, particularly given the party's failure, again, to even have a serious campaign for governor in 2014. California is the most populous state in the country, but it was at the center of the Republican Party for most of the years from 1952-1992, a period of ascendancy for the Party nationally. The national ticket in most of those years included national politicians, notably Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan with roots in California. Many big states are aligned with one party, but California is different both because of the Republican's strong recent history there but also because the diversity of the state that makes it both a harbinger of what the country will become and a place that should be a battleground for competing ideas and visions. In recent years, however, the Republican Party was not made itself relevant in that battleground.

McCutcheon, Money and Democracy

The other impact of the Supreme Court ruling is less direct, but possibly more profound. The ruling sends a completely unambiguous message that as the Supreme Court sees money as a form of speech. We have heard this, in one form or another, that the absurdity of that notion is rarely questioned. It should be. In a democratic system, equality between citizens is a bedrock foundational principle. This is why every person gets one votes regardless of gender, race, status or wealth, and also why countries that do not meet this criteria can never be fully democratic.

Gun Regulation, Profanity and Thuggery in Rhode Island

It is rare that the comments of a state legislator make national news, even more so when those comments are only three short words. Last week, however, State Senator Joshua Miller made national news when he told Dan Bidondi of Infowars to "Go f#ck yourself!" Bidondi, an avid supporter of unrestricted gun ownership had been present at a press conference where Miller and other state legislators appeared. Miller's comments came after Bidondi had been harassing and berating participants at the event.

Miller later apologized for using profanity. However, as more information about this confrontation and about Bidondi comes to light, Miller should probably be lauded for his restraint. Bidondi is associated with the website Infowars, a right-wing site that is given to conspiracy theories questioning, among other things, veracity of the Sandy Hook shooting and the Boston Marathon bombings. Bidondi has sought to represent these views through among other things intimidation and shouting down opponents. Nonetheless, Bidondi has a right to express his views and elected officials, even ones trying to defend constituents from harassment should, on balance, avoid using profanity.

Since these events, and his apology, Miller has faced an unrelenting campaign of thuggery, threats and bigotry. Miller is a small businessman who owns several restaurants in and around Providence. Since he made those comments, Miller's restaurants' web presence have been compromised through floods of negative reviews on sites like Yelp and Trip Advisor and the Facebook pages of his restaurants. Other websites belong to Miller and his campaign have been hacked as well. These are apparently the tactics of the gun supporters who interpret Miller's support of a bill to do things like ban assault weapons and make it illegal to bring guns onto school grounds as undermining the US constitution.

Critics of Miller have also attacked the senator for being too far left. It is not clear that Miller, who chairs the Senate Committee on Health and Human Services, would disagree with the substance of this. Miller is a strong supporter of gun regulation, expanding access to healthcare, marriage equality, the environment and labor. Attacks on Miller for his progressive politics are no surprise given how his position on gun regulations and comments to Bidondi undoubtedly infuriated many on the right.

Pointing out that Miller, a strong supporter of gun regulation, has a generally progressive agenda, is an appropriate political strategy in this context. It is unimaginable that this is the first time Miller has been criticized for being a progressive, and it almost certainly will not be the last. Attacking Miller because he is Jewish, however, is not appropriate at this, or any, time. Bigotry of that kind never plays a constructive role in the political discussion, yet Miller's Judaism has drawncomments of a very bigoted and vile nature since the Bidondi incident.

The anti-Semitism Miller has confronted in recent days is disturbing and draws on some of the oldest and vitriolic prejudices against the Jewish people. It is saddening, but not altogether surprising, that his kind of hatred still exists and is so easily aimed at Miller by some on the far right. More upsetting than the noise from these bigots has been the silence from the more moderate and allegedly reasonable factions of the conservative and pro-gun movements. While these people have every reason to condemn Miller for his profanity, his views on gun regulation and his politics generally, they also have a greater obligation to speak out against the bigotry that some have used against Miller. While it is clear that it is not the mainstream of the Republican Party or the gun movement that made Miller's religion an issue, the need to take a position against this kind of thing remains strong. In their silence, too many on gun supporters tacitly condone attacking Miller for being Jewish, rather than his politics. While this may not be the intent, it is, unfortunately, the effect.

Miller's words have led to different interpretations. Opponents of gun regulation have accused Miller of being an arrogant and elitist politician who cares little for the constitution and specifically the second amendment. Miller's supporters, on the other hand, have asserted that the Senator was standing up to a bully who was using aggressive and confrontational methods to try to stifle debate on gun regulation. Although it is possible to disagree about which of these interpretations is right based on the initial incident, the fallout from Miller's comment makes it clear that the forces of intolerance and intimidation are clearly on the side of Bidondi, as Miller's opponents have resorted to hacking websites, dishonest and negative reviews of decent small businesses, and bigotry to make their point. I don't get to Rhode Island much, but the next time I do, I know whose restaurants I'll be patronizing.

Russia, Ukraine and American Myopia

The debate in the U.S. about how to respond to the Russian invasion has shows the complete self absorption of much of the American political establishment. Russia invaded Crimea primarily because of Russia's interest in Ukraine, domestic political issues in Russia, and as a reaction to recent political events in Ukraine. However, the response in Washington, particularly from the right, has suggested that Russia acted because of America's, and specifically President Obama's, weakness. This assertion was, of course, more about politics in the U.S., than anything happening in Ukraine, but it nonetheless demonstrated that for many what happened in Crimea had to be attributable to something that the U.S., and the Obama administration, did or did not do.

After CPAC

The difference between the Tea Party and the rest of the Republican Party is minor and more a matter of style than substance. This is not a division based on big picture policy differences in which, for example, the mainstream Republicans understand that seeking to slightly raise taxes on the wealthy does not make somebody a socialist or that income inequality should be a concern to all policy makers interested in stewarding the economy towards prosperity. Moreover, mainstream Republicans have been alarmingly reserved over the last five years in their reactions to the often offensive statements made by some in the Tea Party movement.

Four Things You Might Not Want to Know About the Conflict in Ukraine

Russia's invasion Ukraine has set off paroxysms of frustration, anger and incredulity in the west, not least in Washington. Some policy makers and pundits are struggling with ways to constructively address the problems raised by Russian action, others struggle to ensure that somehow President Obama is blamed for these events, and many are trying to figure out the complexity, context and background of these events. Understanding the conflict in Crimea, and the best way forward for the US, requires holding several, conflicting, and often unappealing, ideas in one's head at the same time. These are four of the most important of these ideas.

Remember A Month Ago When the Democrats Care About Income Inequality?

In the last two months, income inequality has quietly fallen out of its brief prominent place in the public debate and discussion. It still mentioned by some economists and some progressive pundits, but something has changed. A few months ago the President of the United States was making speeches about income inequality; the new Mayor of New York placed that issue front and center in his inaugural address; and the Pope, of course, was drawing the most attention the issue by pointing out the contradictions between dramatic income inequality and the teachings of the Catholic Church. All that seems like a long time ago now.

Marijuana, Human Rights and the US Image

The debate about legalizing marijuana is beginning in earnest. It is a debate about individual rights, criminal justice, medicine and economics. It is also a debate where a lot of money is at stake. There are people who stand to lose a lot if the prisons are not full and if new ones are not being built. Those who have profited from the prison-industrial complex will fight hard to ensure that marijuana remains illegal because they know that legalizing it is the first step towards a drug policy that is more rational and humane, although less profitable for them.

A Tale of Two Ukraines

Yet, the West rarely recognizes that Russia, like countries in the West, has its own interests. To Westerners, Russia’s actions are part of a storied narrative: It consistently acts in outrageous ways to thwart not Western interests, but also moral and political good in Ukraine. There’s a big problem with that view: By recasting a struggle between two political forces and interests as one simply between right and wrong, the West makes it more difficult to understand and combat Russian influence. If the U.S. and Europe want to change Russia’s behavior, they must toss those antiquated, Cold War notions, and accept that modern tensions are substantially based on economic and political interests, not just on latent Russian anger, or its alleged inferiority complex. That means accepting, for example, that scolding Russian leaders for breaking Western rules and expectations won’t provoke changes in Moscow. More dramatically, it may require the U.S. to recognize the limits of its ability to influence outcomes in Ukraine or other countries where Russia also has interests at stake.

What Mitt the Movie Tells Us About the Republican Party

This is not just an observation about why Romney lost in 2012, but explains what has happened to a party where certainty and partisan inflexibility have not only become more important than governing or problem solving, but have been elevated as values that trump analytical rigor our sound strategic thinking. The Republican Party has become one where certainty and faith are among the most cherished values of both the leadership and the base. The same is true of the Democratic Party, but to a much smaller degree. President Obama's almost freakish commitment to the concept of consequence, for example, stands in stark contrast to his predecessor's incessant boasting about his certainty. The leap between being surprised on Election Night in 2012 and believing climate change is a hoax is not that big. In both cases, eschewing scientific approaches leads to fundamental misunderstandings of reality. In 2012 it helped cost Mitt Romney the presidency. In the policy arena the consequences for the anti-science approach could be much higher.

Is a Non-Competitive Primary Really What the Democrats Need?

As the 2016 election approaches and the question of whether or not Hillary Clinton runs becomes an even bigger topic of discussion among the punditry, it is likely that we will also be told that having a clear nominee early in the process, rather than a hard fought, and potentially nasty, campaign for the nomination will be good for the party. This idea is intuitively appealing as contested primaries can make it hard to unite behind one candidate in the general election and can damage the eventual nominee. It is additionally something that we frequently hear from front-runners hoping to avoid a tough primary. This idea is intuitive and attractive, but it should be noted that it also completely false.

Chris Christie's Problems Are Not Going Away

Much of the discussion in recent days has been about whether or not Christie is a bully. Being seen as a bully is not something that will prevent Christie from being a strong candidate, particularly because a portion of the population is inevitably going to think somebody who looks and talks like Christie is a bully anyway. If the scandal only reinforced the worst thing that some people thought about Christie, it would not be a big deal. However, the scandal makes is impossible for Christie to take advantage of the best thing that people used to think about the New Jersey governor, that he could put partisan issues aside to address real problems facing people.

The Income Inequality Discussion

Addressing income inequality will require legislation, but it will also require changes in our society and, indeed, our values. Before we address income inequality, we must recognize that it is a problem and that, for example, this is now a country where most children born into poverty, live their whole lives in poverty and where the opportunities enjoyed by the children of the wealthy are dramatically different from those of poor children. Recognizing this is a first step towards solving our economic woes, so it is no surprise that the resistance to even acknowledging this remains intense.

Income Inequality in 2014

The American political system as it is currently constructed is wildly unprepared to focus in any meaningful way on income inequality. The fact that a few platitudes by a Democratic president qualified as a major statement on income inequality is evidence of this. The political system is defined by one party that is committed essentially to making the economically powerful richer and more powerful, and another that is too timid and too dominated by moneyed interests of their own to be able to take a strong position on income inequality. Democrats may be more willing to address issues like marginal tax rates or extending benefits to the unemployed, but these proposals, while generally positive, clearly do not seek to address the fundamental problem of income inequality.

The Imaginary War on Christmas

Limbaugh and O'Reilly and others have, to a large extent, built their careers by making their listeners and fans feel like victims and, equally importantly, presenting powerful and, implicitly non-Christian, interests as the powers causing the problems. The War on Christmas fits so perfectly into this framework that if it did not exist, these victimhood entrepreneurs would have to create it themselves, which come to think of it, is exactly what they have done.

Can the US Stop Itself from Widespread Surveillance?

The political climate following September 11th, when concern about terrorism briefly for some, and not so briefly for others, trumped democratic rights and even common sense, was not on its own enough to usher in a surveillance program on the scale of what the NSA has done. The new technologies over the last decade or so have also made this possible. Twenty years ago monitoring the phone habits of every American would have been an extremely burdensome task. Forty years ago, it would have been insurmountably difficult. Today, the technology exists to make this much easier. This means both that citizens and their representatives should be even more vigilant about protecting our rights and defending the constitution. Unfortunately, that has not been the case in recent years.

A Closer Look at Reactionary Posthumous Attacks on Nelson Mandela

Many of these right wing attacks are offensive and extremely disrespectful to the memory of a truly great man, but they should not be so quickly dismissed as just the rantings of angry right wingers. These comments about Mandela are also echoes of what many said about him when he was alive, particularly before he became president of a free South Africa.

Did President Obama Just Realize Income Inequality Is a Problem

Obviously, it is good that the President saw fit to address this very serious issue, but it is, frankly, outrageous that it took him almost five years into his presidency to address an issue that has been a growing problem in the US for decades and that was brought unmistakably to the fore by events that occurred in the last months of the 2008 campaign. While it is interesting that Obama quoted the Pope in his speech, it is almost as if Obama waited for some kind of political cover from the Pope before publicly addressing the issue of income inequality; either that or the depth and impact of the problem had not occurred to him until the Pope tweeted about it.