Tax Resisting Takes a Stand on Tax Day

Last Wednesday was tax day for most Americans. I say “most Americans” because there are some who recognize the legal obligation to pay taxes, but who chose not to pay some or all of their taxes for ethical or moral reasons. And, in big cities all over the United States, groups gathered on April 15 to protest the bank bailouts, gay marriage laws, and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq with the argument that paying taxes to the federal government encourages corporatism, discrimination, or unjust combat.

In the United States, some citizens subject themselves to IRS fines and penalties and actually resist paying taxes. And while many Americans may be disgruntled by Timothy Geithner’s bank plan, tax resisting (not to be confused with tax evasion, which is subject even stricter penalties and possible jail time), has always has been an integral part of American democracy in spite of the the fact that it is subject to fines and penalties. In the 1790s the first US Treasury Secretary, Alexander Hamilton, implemented a controversial luxury tax on whiskey that had some citizens so riled up that they actually tarred and feathered a handful of tax collectors. While Hamilton insisted that the tax had to be instated in order to pay off debts from the Revolutionary War, the tax resisters were not pleased with that explanation, and in 1794 Washington had to send an army of 12,000 to rural Pennsylvania to quell a rebellion (by the time the troops arrived, the dissenters had dispersed).

Of course, Henry David Thoreau is probably the most famous tax resister, spending a night in jail for refusing to pay six years of back taxes on the principle that he did not support the Mexican-American War and institutionalized slavery. But what about today? Is withholding taxes, despite the fact that it is subject to heavy government penalties, still one of the best ways to show anger and frustration towards one’s government?

A resident of Brooklyn, who I will call Barb Smith for purposes of anonymity, thinks that if you’re frustrated with your government, it makes you a “more responsible citizen.” At a demonstration on the front steps of the New York Post Office, she and fellow disgruntled citizens gathered to lend their voice to the anti-war movement. Handing out fliers that document military spending in this country, Smith, a third-year tax resister and war protester, pointed out that, “Money has an impact and where you spend your money has an impact. My decision [not to pay federal taxes] is in alignment with my conscience.”

Also gathered on the steps on the Post Office was a small group of elderly women from an international pacifist organization. One woman brandished a sign that said, “Raging Grannies and their Daughters.”

However, the sign did not mention granddaughters and Smith noted that, “Unfortunately, there are not many young people involved [in the tax resisting movement]. It’s mostly middle-aged and older people who are passionate about the issue.”

However, despite the age gap, the movement definitely gained momentum this year in cities around the country. Fox News had all day coverage of  “tea parties” in cities like Atlanta and Salt Lake City where protesters angrily voiced their tax boycott of the Wall Street bailouts. In Austin, Texas, Governor Rick Perry galvanized a crowd of angry citizens and even suggested that Texas might secede one day while, in downtown Houston, close to 2,000 people turned out to protest the federal government and threaten secession.

In Boston (the home of the first tea party back in 1773) gay rights groups gathered to protest their inability to file federal joint tax returns, even though Massachusetts has legalized gay marriage. A group with similar concerns gathered on the steps of the New York Post Office but when asked, none claimed to be resisting taxes. “We just want Albany to give us equality,” one woman implored.

Yet, despite all the hoopla surrounding tax resisting this year, the demonstrations still beg the question, does tax resisting in spite of the potential penalties really make a difference?

“I don’t know if the IRS cares,” another protester, who I will call Mark Johnson for anonymity, a fifth year tax resister from New Jersey said, “but I’m appalled at what the money is used for and I resist with a token amount.”

When asked what he does with the money he owes, Johnson insists, “I don’t keep it, I give it to organizations that do good that hopefully counterbalance what the government would do with the money. This year, I’m giving the $198 I owe and I’m sending it to the Iraq Collateral Repair Project.”

And, while he admits he only protests with a small amount of money, Johnson notes that there “is not enough outrage” and that he does the little that he can to press the point that he is not pleased with military spending in this country.

Although it is doubtful that Congress or the Obama administration paid much attention to tea parties, protests, or tax resister demonstrations on Wednesday, many see tax resistance, despite the fact that it is illegal, as the one act outside of voting that citizens can participate in to vocalize their disappointment with their government. And, while there is always the possibility that you can be audited, Smith notes that, “This is America. I’m not afraid of the IRS.”

Editor’s Note: This Web site does NOT in any way endorse or condone any act of tax resisting or tax evasion. Because of possibly incriminating statements, the names of quoted individuals were changed at the request of the editor.

We Need You: A Case for a New Grand Old Party Agenda

Last week Mark Wilson articulated that the GOP’s “alternative” plan for economic recovery was really just more of the same tried and un-true tax-cut policies. On Sunday, Frank Rich went so far as to say that the Republicans’ “desperate” tactics (such as Bobby Jindal’s callow performance Tuesday night and GOP Party Chair Michael Steele’s assertion that the Republican party needs an “off-the-hook” hip-hop makeover) were close to “committing [political] suicide.” While the stakes are definitely high for Obama and the Democrats to pull off this economic recovery, the Republican Party’s future is in dire straits if they don’t come up with a (positive) message—and leaders—fast.

On Wednesday, New York’s registered Independent mayor Michael Bloomberg met with local GOP leaders to ask for their support for his run for a third term as mayor. Although it’s understandable that they would be wary of his sincerity (he dropped the party back in 2007, and many think he only wants their endorsement because he’d be placed more visibly on the ballot), there are currently no clear Republican front-runners that could legitimately challenge Bloomberg when he runs later this year. And, while the party certainly reserves the right not to back him, they ironically need a candidate like him—someone who understands their commitment to balanced and fair economic incentives but also encourages public works projects and city-supported programs for the broader citizenry. In fact, if you look at New York as a political microcosm of the United States, Republicans can only remain relevant in this country if they promote candidates and leaders with Bloomberg-esque ideas; ones that offer innovative policies for their fiscal proposals along with new, bolder initiatives that support individual citizens.

Of course, Bloomberg isn’t perfect. However, the point is that if the Republican party wants to survive, it can’t only look to out-of-touch spokespersons such as Mark Sanford to deliver their fractured message. Although they seem to be avoiding it like the plague, Republicans are going to have to change their agenda, their ideas, and even their mission to go beyond the same old trickle-down, tax-cut, tax-credit mantra. Americans just aren’t buying it.

One possible reason the Republicans are having such a hard time promoting a new, appealing agenda is because while they’ve certainly evolved since their inception to favor the interests of an elite minority of the electorate, they’ve also clung to the image that they represent just the opposite. This stolid Party-of-No got its start by being a conflicted party of misfits: Disgruntled Democrats, frustrated Whigs, angry Know-Nothings, and other politically passionate individuals who really could only agree on their opposition to slavery. This team of outcasts banded together in Wisconsin in 1854 to form the party that only six years later would usher in its first and most famous president—Abraham Lincoln. As the party evolved from one that supported small businesses and individual rights to one that consistently favors corporate tax breaks and social conservatism, it has tried to hang on to its message and supporters by pretending to be Joe the Plumber when it’s really Joe the CEO. Granted, the Democrats are just as guilty of supporting big banks and big companies. However,  they lack the Achilles heel that the Republicans will not confront—denial. Republicans don’t want to change their image, but, ironically, they often misrepresent themselves and don’t embrace the interests of most Americans.

Despite all the best efforts of the Democrats, we need Republicans to challenge them, offer ideas, and approach our economic problems with a different, fresh perspective. We don’t need one party running the show in Washington. Unfortunately, the GOP is making this paradigm easy when congressional members stonewall Obama and his administration, GOP governors threaten to deny crucial funding for their constituents based on ideological disagreement, and Republican leaders and pundits cry “Socialism!” every time the Democrats offer forth a plan but at the same time fail to offer any constructive agenda of their own. (Sorry, the so-called “minority tyranny” that Senate filibustering provides does not constitute as a genuine effort either.)

In his speech on Tuesday night, Governor Jindal implored:

Democratic leaders in Washington, they place their hope in the federal government. We [Republicans] place our hope in you, the American people.

Of all the patronizing statements he made that night, this was the most striking. If the past election taught Americans anything, it was that they are their government and can certainly accomplish a lot if they stay motivated and involved. Jindal’s assertion corroborates the Republican “people v. government” attitude and fails to recognize that Americans want Washington to work for them—they don’t pay taxes for their representatives to sit on their hands. By suggesting that Americans have the power and know-how to overcome the hardships of the economy, health care, and education as individuals, Jindal minimizes the severity of the people’s problems and shirks the responsibility of the post in which he was elected.

Americans don’t expect government to solve all their problems. However, they do expect them to make their best and most qualified effort. If Republicans want to complain about how horrible and intrusive government is, then why are they involved in government at all? They can’t claim the title of watchdog, if they’re just going to bark and not bite.

Which brings us back to Bloomberg. Why exactly did this very popular Republican leader leave the ticket he ran on in two successful elections? In a speech at the University of Southern California in 2007 he explained:

The politics of partisanship and the resulting inaction and excuses have paralyzed decision-making, primarily at the federal level, and the big issues of the day are not being addressed, leaving our future in jeopardy.

This was pre-economic crisis, and yet his words still hold true today for the Grand Old Party. And if the Republicans can’t convince a Wall Street billionaire that they’re capable of instituting effective, industrious policies, whom can they convince? Hey, if Bloomberg wants you back, take him.

GOP Response: They’re Going to Have to Try Harder

Here’s the Republican plan, as articulated (badly) by Gov. Piyush “Bobby” Jindal:

• create jobs by lowering income tax rates for working families;
• cutting taxes for small businesses;
• strengthening incentives for businesses to invest in new equipment and hire new workers;
• stabilizing home values by creating a new tax credit for home-buyers

The Republican evaluation of these plans is that they “would cost less and create more jobs.” I assume the less and more adjectives refer to the Democratic plan. Here is what the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act does, viz a viz the above Republican bullet points:

• A refundable tax credit of up to $400 per individual and $800 for couples in 2009 and 2010. It is calculated at a rate of 6.2 percent of earned income and is phased out for individuals with adjusted incomes over $75,000 and couples with incomes over $150,000. How does this not lower tax rates for working families?
• Small businesses with gross receipts of up to $15 million can write off 2008 losses against five previous tax years. Current laws allows a two-year carryback of losses. How does this not cut taxes for small businesses?
• An $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers for homes purchased between Jan. 1 and Dec. 1, 2009. The tax credit phases out for individuals earning more than $75,000 and couples earning more than $150,000. How is this not a new tax credit for home-buyers?

So, what’s the difference? Republicans want to cut taxes and decrease spending. We’ve seen that before in recessions, and the results weren’t good. Sure, Gov. Jindal and the Republicans believe that “empowering you” is the best way to stop this recession. But what if you don’t have any money? That was precisely the problem that led to the Great Depression, and as noted in the link above, the government’s reaction — to increase taxes and decrease spending — made the problem worse. When no one wants to buy anything, it’s hard to “empower” the consumer to spend money. This is why, in a time of recession, the government intentionally incurs debt in order to increase aggregate demand. Then — and this is the part that Republicans either willfully or negligently don’t mention — when the economy recovers, the government increases taxes and cuts spending in order to pay itself back!

On the Issue of “Small Businesses”

Republicans are fond of conflating individual income taxes and “small business taxes.” There is no such thing as a “small business tax.” The owner of a small business pays himself as an employee, and he pays the marginal tax rate for the salary he pays himself. Concurrently, the small business (which is a corporation if it is incorporated, which it probably is) pays the marginal tax rate for its amount of taxable income. The top corporate tax rate is 38%, which is for taxable income between $15,000,000 and $18,333,333. According to an IRS report from 2005 (the most recent date that the report was issued), 6,082,975 returns were filed for corporations in 2005 (this is adding the number of forms 1120 and 1120S that were filed for 2005, which are by far the most common types of corporate tax forms filed). Of these six million or so returns, 5,475 were for corporations with net income of greater than $15,000,000. That’s 0.09% of corporations. So, when Republicans talk about corporate taxes “hurting” “small businesses,” that’s a lie. The largest single category of business size (as defined by net income) is the “under $25,000″ range.

According to the Small Business Administration, in 2006 (the most recent date that comprehensive figures were available), there were 17,403,814 “firms” in the United States, of which 10,755,262 (62%) have 20 or fewer employees. I think we can agree that the majority of businesses are small by sheer number of employees; this is a purely qualitative evaluation, however, as there are no technical definitions of “small.” This figure does not include nonemployer firms (see below).

Now, if you qualify as self-employed, you pay a flat rate of 15.3%. This rate takes into account the fact that, as a person who is self-employed, your normal payroll taxes — specifically, Social Security and Medicare — don’t happen like they do for people who get a regular payroll check. Also note that only the first $102,000 of self-employment income is subject to the 12.4% Social Security component of the self-employment tax.

The term “small business,” much like the term “partial-birth abortion” and “death tax,” is a public relations phrase, not a legal one. The U.S. Census Bureau, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Small Business Administration (oddly enough) all use the term “employer firm” or “nonemployer firm.” SBA defines a nonemployer firm as “one that has no paid employees, has annual business receipts of $1,000 or more ($1 or more in the construction industries), and is subject to federal income taxes.” There is a larger quantity of nonemployer firms, but there is a far greater amount of revenue from employer firms.

So, in summation, “small business owners” fall into the “working class” tax brackets that get tax cuts, anyway, so they will necessarily get tax relief. Businesses that don’t make a whole lot of money — and that’s the vast majority of them — do get tax breaks. And, in case farms enter the discussion, these numbers don’t include farms. Farms are taxed and regulated differently from every other business.

Republicans like to play up the notion that “Joe the Plumber” would be hurt by Democratic tax policies. In truth, Joe would get a tax cut, and the “small business” that he works for would probably get a tax cut, as well. I doubt, though, that “facts” will stop them from trying.

What’s a Republican Governor To Do?

You know, it’s hard out there for a governor, when he’s trying to make the money for his state budget, and all the infrastructure and unemployment insurance money’s spent, and all the RNC leadership is talking … too much.

Not a single House Republican voted in favor of the “bipartisan” H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, signed into law by President Obama last Monday. Republicans were proud of their united opposition to what they called a bill filled with “pork,” though, technically, “pork-barrel spending” is defined as non-essential spending made for specific, pet projects in a congressman’s home district — say, for a $398 million bridge from one scantily-populated town to an airport. Using that definition, there is no pork in this bill, since it allocates money for only large, federal projects, with no mention of specific projects and nothing targeted at specific districts (in fact, the bill’s flaw may just be its breadth, with line-items for things like “Science” within NASA’s budget).

So, anyway, Republicans are very proud of themselves. But it may be a case of cutting off their noses to spite their faces. On the one hand, they want this stimulus bill to be their first major conflict with the Obama administration, so that they have a clearly defined message in opposition to his; i.e., “wasteful spending.” On the other hand, states are seriously hurting for money. Just this last week, the Great State of California finally closed a $40 billion chasm in its budget for next year. (Although, in spite of that, Governor Schwarzenegger terminated 10,000 state employees and cut the salaries of thousands more in an effort to save some cash. Hasta la vista, employees.)

Republican governors are also in charge in some of the poorest states, like Louisiana, South Carolina, and Mississippi, where this money could be really useful! At what point does adherence to ideology actually start hurting people? You may wish to ask the citizens of Louisiana, where Republican Governor Bobby Jindal may refuse $4 billion in infrastructure funds allocated to it under the stimulus plan, according to CBS News. The New York Times reports that Governor Jindal has already refused expanded unemployment benefits because it would raise business taxes.

Republicans don’t want to appear to be hypocrites, so they’ll do the next-best thing: appear to be obstinate. Of course, all of this posturing isn’t being done because Republicans staunchly adhere to their ideals. What did you think this was, Bizzaro United States? Oh, no; these governors are refusing the money because they plan on running for president in 2012! Refusing stimulus money may cause real damage to millions of people in states where demand for social services and entitlement benefits is on the rise, but that clearly isn’t important to Republican presidential contenders who need to be able to point back to a time when they were 100% in line with the Republican talking points about the stimulus.

Thankfully, Governor Schwarzenegger is not running for president (unless they amend the Constitution. Fingers crossed!). Maybe that’s why he will not only take the stimulus money allocated to California, but why he is urging other Republican governors to do so (although he also said he would gladly take whatever money the other governors don’t want). Unless, of course, the other governors are so unselfish that they’re willing to risk the welfare of their states for a cynical attempt at appearing “fiscally responsible” so that they can make a run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012 by out-conservativing each other. That’s change we can sink in!

Let this serve as another example of why Republicans lost so much in November: as it turns out, they may not care about people. That may be a generalization (and it is!), but I wonder about the guy in New Orleans who’s been laid off and who can no longer make his mortgage payments. I know it will do his heart good to know that Governor Jindal is fighting to prevent him from getting any help because, in so doing, Governor Jindal would boost his chances of being elected president. What does the word “constituency” mean, anyway? Especially when you have to choose between an electorate that can only drag you down and a Republican elite that could be your meal ticket to the presidential nomination.

I’ll give this much to them, though: they stick to their guns, even if those guns will send them hurtling over a cliff. You’ve got to respect someone who is self-centered enough to play chicken with other people’s lives simply to prove a stupid point.

Or not. Which is good, because I don’t.

Will He or Won’t He? The Investigation Question

If it is true that sitting presidents set the political boundaries for future ones, then the recent hand-off of executive power was truly a gift for Barack Obama. When, in modern presidential politics, has a president been provided with so much room to operate? Not only has he enormous public support, his party’s majority in the two houses of Congress, and a huge, urgent financial crisis affording him opportunity for inventive solutions, but most important, he has the George W. Bush administration preceding him. Having Bush brandish executive power over the Constitution like a swinging ax, the boundaries of what is politically acceptable have been pushed so far that, for Obama, it is like playing football on a field the size of Texas.

Within in the context of the last eight years, Obama has been given free reign over an almost full gamut of the political spectrum to execute his ideas. As such, the combination of revulsion toward Bush, and excitement for Obama, causes each conservative move he makes to be acceptable, and any restoration of common sense to be celebrated as progressive.

And this was apparent from the day of the inauguration onward. In his speech, Obama managed set a conservative tone without hardly a whisper of reaction from most progressive commentators. In invoking the Bible to “set aside childish things” (implying collective responsibility for the financial crisis), and adamantly stating that we will not apologize for our way of life, Obama was able to successfully plant conservative memes because they were wrapped in massive progressive celebration. The fact that both The Daily Show and Bill Kristol picked up on this is highly illustrative.

However, the lesson of context is more instructive when considering Obama’s first actions as president. While his executive orders, such as the closure of Guantanamo, the order for the CIA to follow the Army Field Manual for interrogation, and limitations of government secrecy are welcome, are they cause for progressive celebration? A sigh of relief, yes, but the shoots of a progressive agenda? I’m afraid not. After watching Bush spend eight years bending the Constitution to near snapping point, Obama is merely attempting to restore the document to some recognizable form. And more notable, these were the easy moves. In fact, he had to issue these orders. The public outrage over state encroachment of civil liberties had been swelling to bursting point, and was subsequently channeled into the Obama campaign. He had the mandate and the political will to do so, not to mention the founding ideals of the nation on his side. Really, all he has done has been to put back in place what Bush had removed, while at the same time, continuing militarily, very much, in the same vein as his predecessor: bombing Waziristan and killing 14 people. Because the reversals of Bush policy have been rapid, the ones that stayed the same went almost unnoticed.

The great irony of the Bush legacy, though, is that by conducting his office so disastrously, and, by extension, handing Obama so much political breathing space, it is clear that Obama feels he cannot hold Bush accountable, lest that breathing space disappear. The choice between massive political capital and following the Constitution is a very real one, and one with very high stakes. In attempting to bring the former administration to justice, it is very likely, given the tone set by current congressional Republicans, Obama’s agenda would shrink to zero by potentially instigating a political civil war — memories from the nineties, obviously fresh in Obama’s mind. If Obama finds it difficult now, twisting Republican arms in Congress, imagine his options after he attempts to try Bush and Cheney for high crimes and misdemeanors. Then there’s also a massive economic crisis to address, not to mention his own party’s complicity in the waterboarding program, making it not merely difficult to start an investigation, but nigh on impossible.

To prosecute members of the previous administration would be like lighting a match to a partisan war, causing the mechanisms of Congress to jam up, just when we need it to function as efficiently as possible.

It is clear that Obama regards his options less as a balancing act and more mutually exclusive; a choice between principle and pragmatism. And as you would expect, the choice is not without precedent. There is the much-cited example of Lincoln’s magnanimity toward the South before and after the Civil War, but there is also the more appropriate parallel of the Jefferson presidency. After winning the presidency in 1800, Jefferson struck a remarkably conciliatory tone, when he said at his inaugural address that “every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle.” And this, too, was after an incredibly brutal, partisan election, where it followed an administration that severely curtailed both civil liberties and the freedom of the press. Jefferson prosecuted no one for these infractions of the Constitution, including previous president John Adams. In order for him to keep the union together — a very real concern during the nascent United States — Jefferson had to reach out to northern Federalists. For an avid student of history such as Obama, it would seem he seeks to emulate this pragmatic, albeit contradictory, approach to crisis.

It is easy to imagine the president thinking of how he would best like to be remembered: the man who attempted to bring executive malfeasance to justice, or the man who wrested America from an economic free fall. It is clear which one is most politically viable. And given how difficult it would be to investigate Bush, fixing the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression would be easier.

The problem remains though, what to do to prevent future abuse of the executive office? And this is one area where progressives can press Obama to demonstrate some progressive mettle.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi famously took impeachment off the table due to her own complicity in the CIA torture program and, unfortunately, impeachment was the only opportunity to hold Bush to account. However, if the Obama administration were to propose a framework where the requirements to hold impeachment hearings would be made easier — specifically, more definitive — it would do much to prevent politicians like Pelosi from fudging the issue, and presidents (and vice presidents) from abusing their office. Though this would probably require a constitutional amendment, it would be the only way of protecting the state from future executive abuse. As it currently stands, the definition of crimes tried by impeachment is woefully ill-defined to be effective and consistent:

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

As then-House Minority Leader Gerald Ford said in 1970, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

By providing clear definitions of the offenses punishable by impeachment, Obama could demonstrate a willingness to address the crimes of the previous administration without having to sacrifice too much goodwill.

For all the celebrations of Obama’s restoring of civil liberties, it is clear that violations of those liberties must not happen again, and this is where the progressive fight to hold those in power accountable should be aimed.

Team of Dysfunctional Rivals

Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, has been all the rage lately, as President-elect Obama constantly cites it as a book from which he has learned a lot. For the sake of our country, I hope that he means that he has learned a lot about the general historical context and how to tell a good story. Because, if he is drawing on this book for factual accuracy, we are in for some problems. There is nothing wrong with Goodwin’s book, in the same sense that there is nothing wrong with historical fiction. Dr. Goodwin is a wonderful writer and an even better cult of personality. She takes history to the mainstream in a way for which every serious historian should be thankful.  Her eulogy at Tim Russert’s memorial service was graceful and poignant. However, her work should not be taken for God’s word. It isn’t the past plagiarism allegations or the fact that Dr. Goodwin does relatively little of her own research (a team of countless research assistants are said to do the bulk of the work for Dr. Goodwin) that particularly bothers me. In fact, the latter probably explains the former. What bothers me is that her work, like that of other historians-lite such as Michael Beschloss are taken as historical fact by the mainstream media and many of our politicians.

In an excellent op-ed piece in the November 19 issue of the New York Times, historian and Lincoln expert James Oakes wrote about how dysfunctional Lincoln’s cabinet was. This is an excellent read. (I also recommend Oakes book on the relationship between Lincoln and Fredrick Douglass.)

In this light, let’s go through some popular myths about Lincoln’s team of rivals that Oakes dismisses.  Not all these myths are portrayed in Team of Rivals, but each has become part of the conventional wisdom in recent weeks.  As such, many of the quasi-facts in Goodwin’s book have taken on a life of their own in the meme of the talking heads.

Myth 1: Lincoln selected rivals from other political parties.

This is not fact. Lincoln selected other Republican rivals, but not Democratic ones.

Myth 2: This practice was unique and unprecedented.

Far from it, this was common practice in that day. Many horribly unsuccessful Presidents, such as Lincoln’s predecessor James Buchanan also followed this practice. Oakes does a good job of giving us the history here. Does anyone remember stories of the famous duel between Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr? Hate to tell you, but those rivals were both part of Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet.

Myth 3: The cabinet worked well together.

Oakes dismisses this and seems to say that Lincoln succeeded not because of his cabinet, but in spite of it.

You may ask, why all this matters. It matters in the current context because if Obama is going to use Goodwin’s book for historical guidance in selecting his cabinet, it is important to know what really happened back in the 1860s. With this knowledge, perhaps one can better judge whether someone like Hillary Clinton is the best choice.

Now let me be clear–no matter how intriguing it might be–I’m not expecting any duels between Hillary Clinton and Janet Napolitano. However, we can expect some friction and not all of it will be healthy. Is this proposed “team of rivals” model better than classic JFK-LBJ cabinet groupthink that got us into the Bay of Pigs, and arugably led to the disaster in Vietnam? Of course.  Is it better than the one-man fiat of the last eight years (by the way, that one man is not George W. Bush)? Of course. However, we should be careful to draw historical parallels from half-truths and a good story.  Also, we should try to back up a step and determine whether one Republican and one Hillary Clinton truly make a team of rivals. Finally, even if we assume that Obama is aiming for a team of rivals, that he is drawing lessons from Kearns Goodwin, and that Kearns Goodwin’s outline of this history was completely accurate (huge ifs), we would still need to consider the differences in the context of those times that make extending such broad lessons next to impossible in the different world of today. As divided and red and blue states may seem, this not 1860, and we are much more united as a country than many partisans would like to admit.

Cabinet Rundown: AG, DHS, and HHS

With the exception of the Hillary-Clinton-for-Secretary-of-State flirt tease, the rest of President-elect Obama’s cabinet is starting to take shape. Here’s a look at three of those who have been tapped so far (some pending a background check):

Attorney General–Eric Holder, 57, New York

Eric Holder will become the first African American Attorney General in United States history. He was a deputy attorney general and U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia during the Clinton administration and teamed with Caroline Kennedy as the lead vetter of Obama’s potential vice presidential selections. Holder seems to be a solid, non-controversial choice. He will certainly have a tough job ahead of him as the various abuses of the past eight years come to light. Hopefully, Mr. Holder can restore some credibility to the job of  top law enforcer. The funny thing about the attorney general position is that this was John Edward’s job for the taking if he would have kept his zipper up. Ah well, he can take solace with Bill I suppose.

Grade: B

Secretary of Homeland Security–Janet Napolitano, 50, Arizona

Governor Napolitano is immensely popular in Arizona and will become only the third secretary in the brief history of the department of Homeland Security. Before serving as governor of Arizona (she is now in her second term), she was a United States District Attorney for Arizona and was Arizona Secretary of State.  Napolitano is Obama’s first high-profile female selection (Hillary is not official yet). It is likely that both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security will be women.  The one downside to this move for Democrats is that Governor Napolitano was polling strongly in a potential Senate matchup with Senator McCain in 2010. McCain has given initial indication that he plans to run for reelection.

Grade: B+

Secretary of Health and Human Services–Tom Daschle, 60, South Dakota

Tom Daschle is a great selection for this post. I wrote a lot about this selection yesterday.

Grade: A

60 Minutes: Obama’s Inner Circle

In case you missed it, CBS’s 60 Minutes did a fascinating interview with Obama’s inner circle of advisers that aired on Sunday night. Included at the table (from left to right) are Communications Director and future White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, Chief Strategist and future White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod, Campaign Manager and Email Guy David Plouffe, and Strategic Communications Guru Anita Dunn.

This interview is especially intriguing, since with the exception of Axelrod, Obama’s senior advisers have been especially tight lipped and camera shy. This isn’t by accident. One of the core competencies Obama was looking for in an adviser was the emotional intelligence needed to create a collective culture where drama existed. In contrast to the Clinton and McCain campaigns, Obama’s campaign was remarkably on message and in sync with what the candidate had to say on a daily basis. I believe that this aspect of the campaign often gets overshadowed by the charisma of the candidate and the historical significance of the moment.

Watch CBS Videos Online

Obama Meets the Press

Flanked by a cadre of men (and two women), Senator President-elect Obama held his first press conference since Tuesday’s election. The press conference was held in downtown Chicago, only a few blocks from where I work. However, as expected, I wasn’t allowed in the building. We assume most North American readers were probably at work when this presser occurred, so we’ll share the video for everyone to see:

There is nothing too unexpected here. President-elect Obama was calm and collected as always. He’ll have to be considering the mess he is inheriting. His Treasury Secretary selection remains the topic du jour. Former Secretary and king of controversy Larry Summers and New York Fed President Timothy Geithner are both apparently in the running. Former Fed Chair Paul Volcker’s name has been mentioned as well, but he’s about 95 years old.

An Electoral Reflection

Now that I’ve had a few days to let the reality of the situation sink in, I feel moved to write down a few reactions and observations about the historic election on Tuesday. First, I was struck by the various reactions of people on all sides of the political forum. Some were indifferent, which puzzled me, considering the historical implications for both candidates. However, maybe they had opinions that they’d rather keep private, which is their prerogative. Others were joyful, even to the point of sounding like they were experiencing a religious renewal of sorts. Some people who hadn’t held a public political opinion in years were openly ecstatic.

Of course, there was a candidate who lost Tuesday night, and he had his faithful supporters too. Some seemed very gracious in their collective loss, putting their faith in Obama as the next leader of the country. I found this very refreshing and a far cry from my own reaction to the Republican victory four years ago. Speaking of that bitter reaction, I have come across people who were, like I was in ‘04, downright dejected and cynical about the whole human race. While there’s a part of me that feels the overwhelming temptation to arrogantly laugh off their seemingly hyperbolic behavior, I stop short, again remembering what it felt like to be on the losing end of a very passionate election season. I know what it feels like to wonder how people, many of whom you respect and love, could fail to see the situation the way that it seemed so blatantly obvious to you at that moment. To those people, the following may sound like bitter consolation at a time like this, and they may even feel like I’m mocking them in my victory (which I am most certainly not doing). However, I know what it’s like to invest so heavily in a set of ideals and to have the bottom fall out from under you. You may make your vows to avoid speaking with certain people of the other camp. However, with any luck, those vows won’t hold much water. You may never fully absorb the shock, but the little things in life go on. Trust me, if there’s one thing I’ve had to learn over the past eight years, it’s that we share a greater measure of simple, common humanity than is usually apparent in the midst of our political bickering and posturing.

Second, and this is my own reaction and opinion, I feel incredibly optimistic. Admittedly, even foolishly so. I have become so used to the idea that my government is diametrically opposed to my core values for the past eight years that I forgot what it felt like not to have to fight the country’s leadership every step of the way. Granted, the new administration is not going to fix every thing that I perceive to be a problem immediately after inauguration, but it’s still nice to know that the new president is at least open to suggestions, rather than believing that he has a moral mandate to rule in a way that doesn’t pay any regard to certain segments of the population.

Finally, I will offer a personal conjecture, and you may feel like this is where my childlike optimism might be boiling over a bit too much. I took in the whole cultural situation Tuesday night, including the unpopular wars, the struggling economy, the civil rights and equality issues, the vested interests doing their best to divide the country, and I couldn’t help but feel a connection with my parents’ generation. When they were young, many of them tried to fight against the war in Vietnam and even more tried to fight for equality of the races and genders. They tried to take on the system, the “Man” as it were, and the vested interests of the day. Of course, from their perspective, they failed on many counts, sparking a decade of disillusionment, lack of direction, a swing of the pendulum back to the right.

Did our generation, those under the age of 30, just pull off what our parent’s generation couldn’t pull off? Did we just (finally) finish the 60’s? I can just hear certain conservatives wanting to brand me a hippy-dippy, socialist flower-child who wants to smoke grass and copulate with random women for saying that we just “finished the 60’s.” It was, as I said, just a little flight of cultural and historical fancy on my part, not an actual claim that I think we’re all going to repeat the 60’s and “try to love one another right now.” Maybe it’s saying too much and reaching too far. Maybe I’m just putting more significance into an election already brimful of meaning. But I can’t help but wonder: Did our “apathetic” generation just bring about a national reckoning with the ghosts from our recent past? I’m skeptical myself, but I still feel compelled to make that leap of logic….

Next Page »