Minimizing FISA

While I see the need to elect Obama over McCain, I'm getting tired of toe-the-line Democrats who are deriding Glenn Greenwalk and others for making an issue of FISA. No, we're not children. yes, we understand that "politics is the art of the possible." Yes, we know that no candidate will ever 100% match our beliefs and ideals.

But we're not talking about a failure to declare Lucky Charms the national breakfast cereal. We're talking about the erosion of the Fourth Amendment. Obama's compromise on a pillar of the Bill of Rights speaks badly about the candidate's commitment to liberty. It makes progressives wonder: if he's willing to compromise on that, what else is he willing to compromise on?

That said, I recognize that Obama is more to the left than, say, Bill Clinton was. That's come about because progressive activists have helped mainstream leftist positions on marriage equality, health care, Iraq, social security, and a host of other issues. Think about that the next time you feel tempted to take a swing at the "ideological purists" on the left.

"Withholding" Money from Obama Is Fine By Me

As you can see from this thread on Yglesias, some Democrats are pissed that progressives are refusing to donate to Obama due to his tack to the center, and instead are giving their money to more consistently liberal Democrats. That seems like a perfectly good compromise position to me: vote for Obama as the best presidential candidate (well, the best one with an actual chance of winning), but put your money behind the people who will bring about the change you believe in. That's not "enforcing ideological purity"; it's using your money wisely.

The "anti-purists" may be right that a full-on progressive couldn't win the presidency. But unless we rally behind truly progressive candidates, that will never change. "Get Obama elected" and "shift America leftward" are not mutually exclusive goals. Some folks will be more attracted to the former mission than the latter, and vice versa. Citizens should engage in politics in the way that best engages their passions. Demanding obligatory donations isn't the best way to set the electorate on fire.

The larger, more disgraceful, problem is that we're no longer voting with votes, but with dollars. But mentioning such things has fallen out of fashion.

The Democracy Within The Democracy

The more I think about Barack Obama's "small donor revolution," the more disturbing it seems. It's a democracy within a democracy - a vote with dollar bills instead of votes. It doesn't equalize anything; those with more dollars get more votes.

What does it change? The millions of dollars collected are still being used for the same purpose: to wage a war of sound bites. It's a revolution within the system, not a revolution of the system. A heap of those advertising dollars will be spent on "gotcha" campaigns highlighting non-issues a.k.a. the Rev. Wright brouhaha. The end result will be an election decided, not on ideals or even issues, but on the psychological echoes of propaganda.

In other words, business as usual.

Obama Pushes Service Plan, Turns 9/11 Against Republicans

Some good ideas and leadership here. Especially inspiring when you contrast Obama's extensive plan to McCain's "plan" (included at the story's end):

In a section entitled "A Cause Greater Than Self," the presumptive GOP nominee asks Americans to donate their time to relief efforts -- including helping out in the flood-ravaged areas of Iowa. See more on McCain's plan

There is also a list of suggested sites where people can volunteer.

Obama, by contrast, advocates expanding AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps, expanding the ability of non-profits to offer service opportunities, and extend more opportunities for serving to the working, the retired, and the disadvantaged, among other proposals.

Obama took the occasion to turn September 11th into a talking point against the Bush administration:

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee also touched on the "spirit" of service witnessed after the September 11, 2001, attacks and take aim at the Bush administration's failure to capitalize on this opportunity to call Americans to service.

"We were ready to step into the strong current of history and to answer a new call for our country. But the call never came," he said.

"Instead of a call to service, we were asked to shop. ... Instead of leadership that called us to come together, we got patriotism defined as the property of one party and used as a political wedge ... we ended up going into a war that should have never been authorized and should have never been waged." [Emphasis added]

Boom, baby. Between this and his opposition to the anti-family marriage equality ban in California, Obama has shown that he'll fight the good fight.

Let Them Eat Golf Balls

I'm trying not to miss the point of Andrew Sullivan's post about Obama, Tiger Woods, and progressive taxation.

We're supposed to feel sorry that, under Obama's plan, Tiger Woods "only" gets to keep 43% of his paycheck? In the example given in the op-ed that Sullivan links, this results in Woods clearing closer to half a million dollars for a single win, as opposed to his usual three-quarter of a million haul. Given that Woods is worth an estimated $500 million, and that his wealth is supposed to surpass $1 billion by 2010, I find it hard to believe that Woods considers the increased tax a burden. What's his thought process supposed to be here - "Damn, there goes that luxury house in Tulsa"?

Meanwhile, Sullivan neglects the more compelling argument in the linked op-ed by Prof. Hank Adler, which is that increased taxes would prompt sports teams to raise their ticket prices by an average of $16 a pop. The rich, in other words, will simply pass their increased tax burden onto the hoi polloi. That's a meaningful argument.

But as Prof. Adler himself wrote, the economy doesn't exist in a vacuum. Baseball stadiums are already a vast money pit for the average American. It costs no less than $120 for a family of four to attend a game at the cheapest stadium in America. Baseball fans pay top dollar to subsidize the bloated salaries of pro athletes (which is their prerogative). Despite massive public funding, the "additional" costs of building new, modern stadiums are passed on to fans in the forms of higher ticket and concession costs. Your average Yankees diehard pays for stadiums designed with $2,500 big-spender seats, and their own private elevators and concourses for the well-to-do fan.

And yet the good professor believes most baseball-loving Americans will sit idly by while team owners pass the cost of their millionaire players' tax increases down to fans in the midst of an economic recession? I'd love to see our 24-45 (and counting) Mariners do that here in Seattle, and see how far it gets them.

Someone's out of touch here. And it isn't Barack Obama.

Andrew's a great writer and thinker, but he's at his worst when he falls back into the pit of the thoughtless conservatism of his youth. His assertion that Obama has it in for Tigers Woods because he's "too successful" is as profound as saying that Islamic fundamentalists hate us for our freedom.

Progressives Must Keep Pressure - But Not Just on Obama

Good thoughts from Alternet's Kathy G on the work that progressives need to perform in order to drag Obama back to their side of the issues:

This is where we, as liberals, progressives, lefties, activists, whatever-you-want-to-call-us, come in. I do not believe that our interests are best served by the kind of cheap electioneering we saw over the primary campaign. What would be far more effective would be an independent movement that makes strategic alliances with various political candidates but is also distinctly separate from them.

Instead of shilling for Barack, or Hillary, or whoever, we should have been pressuring the candidates to work for our votes. We should have been pressing them to take firm, non-negotiable positions in favor of things like no immunity for the telecoms, or immediate withdrawal from Iraq with no residual troops. Instead, we were really cheap dates. And when you act like suckers, don't be surprised when something like Obama's support for the FISA compromise comes back and bites you in the ass.

If we want real change in this country, the place to look for it is not in our so-called leaders, but in ourselves. What we need, in short, is a movement. Without such a movement, President Obama is not going to be able to achieve a whole lot more than President Clinton or President Carter did. But with such a movement, we may actually get somewhere. FDR was able to achieve great things because he had the strong support of a powerful labor movement. Similarly, the civil rights movement was the wind at LBJ's back. But I ask you, what will President Obama have?

Sam Stein covers some of the same ground in his article "Serenity Lost: Obama and The Netroots".

One might argue that this is all empty rhetoric if there are zero consequences for not listening to the progressive cause. But the one time there were real consequences at the presidential level was in 2000, when disaffected progressives backed Ralph Nader and the Green Party. The result was eight years of an imperialist presidency that has steadily eroded our freedoms. No honest progressive, as upset as they may be with Obama's General Election moves, wants to open the floodgates to a third Bush term. Nader is wrong: there is virtue in electing the "least worst" candidate.

The key term there is "at the presidential level." Supporting Obama as the best presidential candidate (which he is) doesn't preclude fighting for just causes when his leadership veers off track. A lot more action on issues such as FISA can be taken at the level of individual Senators and Representatives. A great example: the robocalls being run in House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer's district by local activist Rev. Lenox Yearwood, lambasting Hoyer's FISA compromise. And you can bet that progressive activists will remember FISA when Hoyer's re-election comes due.

Obama to McCain: Screw Your X-Prize for Car Batteries!

I knew there was something amiss about McCain's $300 million free-market incentive to the individual (or monolithic corporation) who could invent a better electric car battery. Yes, such an achievement deserves reward. But I imagine many engineers and scientists already want to do this, and for nobler reasons. Dean Kamen could make tons of money cranking out cheap gee-whiz gadgets; instead, he's invented a device to bring cheap drinking water to impoverished nations.

That Wired comment thread brings up an excellent point vis a vis commercialization of necessary technologies. One commenter urged Kamen to turn his machine over to "greedy capitalists" to drive its production costs down to the $1,000-$2,000 target range needed to make Kamen's Slingshot viable for worldwide distribution. Another reader astutely noted that this is exactly what Kamen attempted with the Segway, an expensive toy whose real purpose was to drive down the costs of parts needed to make the iBot, Kamen's wheelchair that traverses stairs and puts disabled people at the same height as the abled. Markets aren't omnipotent; they're often short-sighted and blind to our higher motives.

Barack Obama, to his immense credit, recognizes this, and has called McCain out:

When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win -- he put the full resources of the United States government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people.

Other Gristmill readers take Obama to tack, however, for not going further than the traditional, free-market-oriented approaches. Still, after a horrid week in which Obama backtracked on both NAFTA and FISA, this was nice to see.

Paid Parental Leave Passes House - But Not by Veto-Proof Margin

Semi-good news here. The bill approves four weeks of both maternal and paternal leave - so wonderful news for dads. Sadly, the majority was large, but not large enough to pass Bush's veto pen.

Jim Webb (bless his heart) has introduced a companion bill in the Senate, where I suspect the margin will be tighter. After all, who can afford paid parental leave when there are dictators to prop up the world over?

At least President Obama will have some decent legislation to sign after he's inaugurated.

Australia is the only other country besides the United States that offers no paid maternity leave. The bill would, however, still leave us behind the United Nations recommendations of 16 paid weeks for mothers. As USA Today notes, our lack of paid leave reflects "a radically different approach to maternity leave than the rest of the developed world" - one undertaken "with little public debate."

Isn't it time we debated it?

Greenwald: Don't Give Obama Pass on FISA Compromise

What he said.

FISA is bad law, even if (big IF at the moment) the telecom amnesty provision gets gutted.

As Greenwald and others note, what's so frustrating about this is not just that it's an example of Democrats caving to the right, but that it's Obama doing it. He's shown in spades that he can vigorously reject Republican framing when the need arises, and turn the tables on his opponents. (Cf. his evisceration of Giuliani et. al. over 9/11.) But when it came to defending our constitutional rights, Obama not only chose not to reject the framing, he embraced it. Greenwald:

Obama has embraced a bill that is not only redolent of many of the excesses of
Bush's executive power theories and surveillance state expansions, but worse,
has done so by embracing the underlying rationale of "Be-scared-and-give-up-your-rights." Note that the very first line of Obama's statement warns us that we face what he calls "grave threats," and that therefore, we must accept that our Leader needs more unlimited power, and the best we can do is trust that he will use it for our Good.

Obama Backs "Compromise" (Read: Cave-In) on FISA

Let the excuse-making begin.

The presumptive Democratic nominee says he'll fight the telco amnesty provision in the Senate, so there's still hope that America's corporations won't get away scot-free with working hand in glove with the Bush police state. Once amnesty passes, that's all she wrote.

It's times like this that I consider why we have no viable parties outside of the Big Two in the United States. Ralph Nader and the Greens came close to having one in 2000 - but then we all dumped on them for "costing" Al Gore the election, effectively putting that movement to the sword. (The same folks should blame Gore instead for his schizophrenic performance in the GE.) Neither Ron Paul nor Bob Barr appear poised to make a true dent on the right (although Paul came the closest).

I like Obama, who does his best given the constraints of the system. But I wouldn't mind having richer political subdivisions than we have today. My preference would be to belong to a party where we spent more time defending principles, and less time justifying their compromise.