A Free Choice? Making the Case for American Workers

Over the past week, there has been substantial media coverage of the public rancor over A.I.G. bonuses, the Obama administration’s ballooning deficit spending, and Timothy Geithner’s plan to buy up toxic debt. And while Washington’s economic policies certainly deserve to be on everyone’s minds, there is another issue that could affect millions of workers that is getting far less play in the news but definitely a lot of heated debate among union leaders, corporations, and Congress—“card-check” voting.

Its official name is the Employee Free Choice Act and it would amend the National Labor Act of 1935 to essentially make union organization much easier for workers. The legislation would allow workers to form a union if a majority signs pro-union cards and would forgo the current practice of secret ballot elections. Other provisions would impose binding arbitration when employers and unions fail to reach a contract after 120 days and would substantially increase fines on employers who jeopardize union activities.

Proponents of the plan are many Democrats and large unions (including AFL-CIO and SEIU) who say that the current restrictions for unions put their members’ rights at a disadvantage. Many advocates for the change in the law, such as the union coalition Change to Win, say that private voting encourages intimidation and coercion of companies’ employees who wish to unionize. The act would also encourage a speedier and more thorough process in contract disputes and would triple the damages imposed against companies who do not adhere to union standards.

There are many opponents of this measure—both corporate and political—who view this legislation as an ends-to-justify the means type of regulation. The Chamber of Commerce has been very outspoken in its disapproval of the Act and notes that it could disenfranchise both parties (employers and workers) in the long run.  Under the proposed new rules, union organizers would be under no obligation to notify their employers that they are going to launch a union drive.  In addition, the “card check” policy would abolish secret-ballot elections even if many workers wish to have them. Also, in the instance that the companies and the newly formed unions fail to reach an agreement within a limited time frame, a federal government arbitrator must step in to mediate the contract so that a deal is reached—even if the outcome is not ideal for either party.

On Tuesday, Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania) said he would oppose the union “card-check” measure and, without his support, the legislation would likely fail in the Senate. Noting that he may very well be the “deciding vote,” Specter, who was the only Republican to vote for cloture in the previous Congress, says he is against the Act because it “will result in further job losses.” Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Costco, and several other large corporations agree. (It should be noted that Specter faces a stiff primary challenge from his right flank in 2010.) Whole Foods CEO John Mackey told the Washington Post on Sunday that the binding arbitration clause is “not the way we normally do things in the United States” and that allowing workers to organize without a secret ballot “violates a bedrock principle of American democracy.”

While corporations certainly are justified to feel threatened by this Act, ultimately, the workers are the ones who should receive some long overdue benefits. While Specter may consider the legislation a possible hindrance to labor and Mackey even deems it un-American, the rebuttal should be what is more beneficial to the labor movement than empowering workers and what is more American than appealing to the government for the rights of its citizens? According to Change to Win, low-wage workers only earn 83 cents on the dollar of what they were earning 35 years ago. What’s more is that Pennsylvania State University’s Poverty in America Project concludes that “in 2003, almost 25% of the nation’s counties had low per-capita incomes below one half the national average or less, high unemployment, low labor force participation rates, and a high dependency on government transfer payments-all measures of economic distress.” Most of these counties are located in areas with a relatively low levels of union penetration, such as the Deep South.

According to MSNBC, the vote on the EFCA might get pushed back to 2011 and  the Obama administration will be “quietly” happy since they support it but don’t really have the energy to fight for it at the moment. However, if this bill does come to vote and fails in the Senate, then compromised legislation will undoubtedly be pushed through that could do more harm than good for both employers and employees. To avoid that from happening, corporations worried about the Employee Free Choice Act should reach out to their employees and hold forums where both parties can speak their minds and try to understand each other’s positions. One of the reasons this issue has become a Congressional matter is because many large companies have at times failed to look out for the interests of their workers and put fiscal profits ahead of human capital. If these large corporations truly want to temper these regulations, then they must have an open dialogue with their employees and offer some solutions such as health care, transportation vouchers, child care benefits, higher wages, organizational tranparency, and more employee input into the decision-making processes of the organization. The only way to curb workers’ desire to unionize is to provide similar financial and non-financial benefits under a corporate business model. And, with low-wage workers who are unionized ultimately earning an average of 44% more than their non-union counterparts, even in these hard economic times it going to be a hard bargain to sell non-represented workers anything short of that improvement.

Obama’s Use of State Secrets Is More of the Same

Throughout his administration, President Bush invoked a little-known and less-understood doctrine called the State Secrets Privilege. The privilege allows the Executive to suppress evidence in a court case if, in the Executive’s estimation, revealing that evidence in court would compromise national security. The use of the privilege is not unprecedented. Bush, however, didn’t merely use the privilege to get evidence thrown out. He tried to have whole cases dismissed. (Please read this article from Lewis & Clark Law Review for more information about the abuse of the State Secrets Privilege.)

In the arena of warrantless wiretapping, the administration argued that it could not provide documentation to plaintiffs that they were wiretapped, since even providing evidence of wiretapping would compromise national security. And, since the plaintiffs can’t prove they were ever wiretapped, they have no standing to bring a case, so the administration also requested that the case be dismissed. Thankfully, Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rejected the Bush administration’s assertions.

But now, the Obama administration is in town, and given his memorandum ordering more transparency in government, he’s going to reject the Bush administration’s assertion that entire cases can be thrown out due to the State Secrets Privilege.

Just kidding! In fact, Obama’s Justice Department has gone even further in asserting opacity when it comes to the State Secrets Privilege. On Friday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration’s arguments — which were a continuance of the Bush administration’s arguments — that the State Secrets Privilege can be used to dismiss entire cases.

Immediately following the ruling, Obama’s Justice Department filed a new brief in which it asserted that it will not comply with the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling because — drumroll, please — no court has the authority to compel the Executive to release top secret information, for any reason whatsoever. In case you think I’m misinterpreting the brief, here you go:

In addition, the relevant Executive Branch official must determine that plaintiffs’ counsel have a “need to know” the information. In this case, the relevant official, the Director of the National Security Agency (“NSA”), has determined that counsel do not have a need to know. This decision is committed to the discretion of the Executive Branch, and is not subject to judicial review. Moreover, the Court does not have independent power, either under its supervisory authority, or under authority analogous to that granted by the Classified Information Procedures Act (“CIPA”), 18 U.S.C. App. 3, to order the Government to grant counsel access to classified information when the Executive Branch has denied them such access. Therefore, the Government respectfully suggests that the Court should not take further steps at this time that would result in plaintiffs’ counsel being granted access to the classified information at issue.

Any determination made by the Executive that information is top secret is final. It is not subject to judicial review. Ever. At all. Period. What the Executive says, goes. There is no other instance — none! — anywhere in this country where any body has ever asserted that its decisions are outside the scope of judicial review, save legislation passed by Congress restricting review. This is solely Congress’ power, and not the president’s, as articulated in Article III, § 2 of the Constitution:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

There is nowhere to be found anywhere in the Constitution the assertion that the president can make decisions that are outside the scope of judicial review. Indeed, the existence of such a rule would be detrimental to our republic. Imagine: the president asserts the State Secrets Privilege for a malicious, disingenuous, non-secret reason, but because the president’s claims of privilege are non-reviewable by anyone, there is no one to appeal to in order to contest the legitimacy of the president’s assertion. If true, this doctrine would mark the first time in the history the United States that a single branch of government cannot be checked by any other branch. This is extremely dangerous.

What will the Obama apologists say now? I have famously complained that Obama’s policies are “more of the same,” whether they be continuances of Clinton-era policies, or Bush-era policies. Which wedge of the Obama Wheel of Apology does this action fall under? Shall we file unilateral executive authority under pragmatism? Or perhaps it is more akin to the I, Claudius explanation, in which Obama will one day pull his mask off and reveal himself to be a progressive socialist who has been working behind the scenes to undermine the system even as he pretends to uphold it? Can this be explained by team of rivals or bipartisanship? What other buzzword that is used to explain away the lack of significant change is appropriate here? Obama can do no wrong!

Okay, coyness aside. The Obama administration has made a bad decision. This is absolutely the wrong assertion to make. And I find it surprising, especially in light of the memorandum mentioned above, that Obama would claim such broad authority in this matter. Unless, of course, the Justice Department is working independently of Obama’s personal agenda, in which case, it’s time for someone to sit down and have a serious talk with Eric Holder about how the Constitution works.

But I seriously doubt this is the result of a rogue Justice Department. No, Obama has made a bad call, here. He is acting terribly like George W. Bush in his assertion of powers that are not his. It doesn’t matter if Obama is a great guy; no one person — not even a “benevolent dictator” — can be invested with such broad powers. It’s illegal, it’s unconstitutional, and given Obama’s background as a constitutional law scholar, he should know better. It’s shameful and he needs to stop it. This is not the change I voted for. (H/T Glenn Greenwald, of course.)

“Buy American” Policies: More Hurtful than Helpful?

Last week’s $787 billion dollar stimulus promised aid to education, infrastructure projects, jobless benefits, and a whole host of other programs designed to stimulate the economy. While the bill was pretty straight forward, there were a few provisions that stood out and inevitably were nixed (i.e.,  the clause specifying that no federal money was to go to former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich). However, one short, but very controversial clause on page 189 did make it to the final bill. There, section 1605 states: “None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron, steel, and manufactured goods used in the project is produced in the United States.”

There are some exceptions (for instance, if the cost of American raw materials will increase the overall cost of the project by 25 percent, the party purchasing the materials can apply for a waiver) but the real significance of this clause is that it sets a very negative and narrow tone on the global economic crisis. Even President Obama stated in an ABC interview that this stipulation was “a potential source of trade wars” and John Bruton, the EU ambassador to the US, cited it as a “dangerous precedent.” Although the provision does state that it “shall be applied in a manner consistent with United States obligations under international agreements” it still forces many companies, such as the struggling Caterpillar, to spend more of their fiscal resources on raw materials instead of preserving jobs or raising wages. Also, given the fact that 37 percent of all manufactured goods sold in America are not made here, this stipulation seems hard-lined and, at some level, woefully misguided.

Moreover, the other underlying and more significant impact of this “Buy American” policy is this: If American companies are forced to purchase domestic raw goods for the public works projects, then what is stopping other countries from enacting the same jingoistic economic policies? This economic crisis is a global one and if every country decides to enforce a “buy me first” approach, this crisis will get far worse before it gets better. Not long after Congress announced its plan, major international news outlets such as Japan Today, Canada’s CBC NEWS, and China’s Xinhua criticized the measure. The International Herald and Tribune also noted that the United State’s protectionist policy could incite a backlash in which other nations stipulate a Don’t-Buy-American policy on foreign goods.

Although I understand Congress’s desire to promote the construction of new roads and bridges, green technology, and car manufacturing while supporting what little domestic manufacturing industry we have left, the reality is that (a) we don’t produce enough of these materials to support the sweeping projects they want to see enacted, and (b) even if we did, we may be shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak, if we don’t work to stimulate other nations’ struggling economies in the process of stimulating our own. Maybe this approach would be acceptable, or even relevant, if this were just an ordinary American recession. But we are in the midst of a global crisis, and our economy will not get better if everyone else’s is suffering.

I believe a smarter and more fitting approach would have been a “Make American” initiative. Not an ultimatum like the “Buy American” provision, but a tax-break incentive encouragement for either domestic companies to expand their production of vital goods or for foreign ones to locate some of their operations in the United States. In both scenarios, there would be job creation and more spending. Instead of forcing companies to purchase domestic raw materials, encourage them to make products that can be purchased here or abroad. In Louis Uchitelle’s article on this issue for the New York Times last week, he cited the example of mass transit—while the stimulus bill calls for the expansion of mass transit, there are no US companies that manufacture the train cars necessary for that expansion. Now these projects will have to rely on American steel, iron, and manufactured goods while they also negotiate their express need for a specific foreign good they cannot get domestically. Wouldn’t it be nice (and much cheaper for taxpayers) to let cities purchase some raw materials from China or India and let the United States encourage these more specialized industries to move some of their operations here since we will be purchasing such a high volume of these products?

Of course, America will never return to its manufacturing hey day, and I’m not suggesting that domestic production will solve all our economic woes. But by encouraging a responsible, inviting economic policy, we could perhaps not only pave the way for global economic recovery, but also mend some broken foreign policy fences we need to repair from the past administration. Yet, despite the demands of this myopic economic policy, I hope that the Obama administration can find other ways to encourage growth domestically and promote more foreign investment in America’s future without ostracizing our trade partners and fellow economically struggling nations.

Metrics, Mistakes, and Opportunities for Growth

Overall, I am a big fan of metrics. I truly believe that you can’t manage what you can’t measure. Presidents are often measured on a 100-day metric, “The First 100 Days” as a phrase often chirped by the media. Questions have persisted recently about how realistic a metric this is. With President Obama, many believe that this amount of time will not be sufficient to even begin to make a dent in the serious deficits (both moral and economic) that were left behind by the previous President. Some have proposed that the end of 2009 might be a better metric. With most economists speculating that the current deep recession will not turn around under a best-case scenario until late 2009, this seems a bit fairer.

However, after less than 20 days, for many on the far left and far right, Obama’s honeymoon has already ended. No one expected his honeymoon with those on the far right to last long. However, the fact that the far left have in many cases already turned on Obama is disconcerting.  For example, check out some of the comments on this thread from OpenLeft.

Yes, Obama has made some blunders, but I do not believe that these mishaps have been anywhere near fatal errors. Instead of knee-jerk reactions, let’s take a look at two areas where I believe Obama actually has made a mistake, and more importantly, how I believe he can use this mistake as a learning experience. As a human being, everyone makes mistakes, even presidents. The question is not whether a mistake was made during the beginning days of a presidency, but rather whether action was taken to learn from that mistake. In general, this includes a root-cause analysis with corrective action going forward. For example, President Kennedy took the Bay of Pigs failure and used it as the impetus to change the decision-making process in his inner circle. This fundamental change helped get rid of the previous group think and helped avert a disaster in the Cuban missile crisis, which occurred the next year. Yes, the Bay of Pigs was unfortunate. However, if the Bay of Pigs mistake had not happened, the same disaster, at a billion times the magnitude (i.e., nuclear holocaust) could have occurred the following year. Working with the subject of patient safety in health care, I am exposed to this type of analysis all the time. Most errors are not the fault of one person, but rather the result of a misaligned organizational structure that does not catch errors or raise the proper questions.

Let’s take a look at two examples of what I believe have been mistakes and how the Obama administration could possibly learn from them going forward:

1. Tom Daschle Appointment

As a health care policy wonk, I found the developments with Tom Daschle the most disappointing developments to date. As I wrote here, I believed Tom Daschle would have been a perfect fit to get real health care reform through Congress. Granted, I write this before it is clear who Obama’s replacement choice may be, and this choice may surprise us all. However, when it came to the pure Washington knowledge needed to get something through, Daschle was the man. However, this greatest strength also came to be Mr. Daschle’s greatest weakness.  To me, the tax issue was an aside. The biggest problem was that Daschle became emblematic of the Washington insider’s sense of entitlement or the lobbyist rotating door cycle of greed that Obama campaigned against. When taking office, Obama seems to have caved on some of this campaign rhetoric in favor of practicality, with the reality that you must work within the system in order to get anything done.  Overall, this is unfortunate, but largely correct. However, there is a line to be passed; there is a needed sense of accountability and most importantly transparency in government. Tom Daschle crossed this line, and more importantly, did not disclose these transgressions. The fact that no one in the Obama transition raised questions about Daschle’s past lobbying or tax issues is very troubling. The dilemma is that in order to get anything accomplished, you must work within the system (even if you are independently working to change it). However, at the same time, if the system is broken, you cannot try to make lasting change with those who have become one with the system. Finding a cabinet secretary who can meet this requirement is easier said than done.

The solution here is perhaps to create two positions, one for a “health care czar” to handle the political issues and another for Secretary of HHS to handle the technical aspects and realities of health care reform. Ideally, there would also be an independent board appointed outside of the political realm to handle tough decisions related to such issues as cost effectiveness and reimbursement. Such tough decisions must be brought outside of the direct influence of lobbyists. Outside of being a health care expert, President Obama must make sure that he finds individual(s) with the complex mix of insider knowledge and outsider credibility, and most importantly, that any such person is properly vetted.

2. Stimulus Bill Negotiations

Although successful in the end, President Obama severely underestimated his opponents in the negotiations over this package. In a gesture of bipartisanship, Obama offered a large percentage of the bill as tax cuts in his first proposal to Congress, thinking that this would lead to widespread Republican support and easy passage of the bill. This was naïve at best, possibly political malpractice if repeated in the future. One of the big lessons out of this is that outside of a few Republican Senators, the Republican party is not a moderate party. The last two election cycles have defeated most Republican moderates in swing districts and turned the once great party of Abraham Lincoln into nothing but a regional party controlled by the Deep South. There is no incentive for most of these members, outside of people like Arlen Specter who are up for reelection in blue states, to be for a stimulus package. If the stimulus is a success, it doesn’t matter how they voted because the Democrats will get the credit. If the stimulus package fails, there will be a real opportunity for Republicans who voted against it to claim they were in the right. Therefore, a simple logic tree would have shown Obama and his political team that there was no incentive for the Republicans to compromise on this bill.

Hopefully, Obama’s political team will learn from this mistake in the same way that Kennedy’s team learned from the Bay of Pigs disaster. From now on they must give nothing without getting something in return. Bipartisanship only works if someone is willing to meet you in the middle.

Final Thoughts

Overall, the far right needs to be ignored, the far left needs to chill out, and the Obama administration needs to methodologically look at and learn from their early mistakes. If the Obama administration is to be successful, odds are that these early mistakes will be looked back at not as blunders, but rather as invaluable learning opportunities for a young presidency.

What Do You Think a Stimulus Is?

Yesterday, President Obama finally stood up to the Republicans. For the last week, Republicans have been doing what they do best: controlling the message. They have talked about the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 only in terms of its negative components: how much individual elements cost, how there aren’t enough tax cuts. They have, as they always do, derided and made fun of specific parts of the bill, like the part that calls for moving the federal vehicle fleet to hybrid cars. In much the same way that Sarah Palin derided certain research projects during the election (research projects that, by the way, benefit the state of Alaska), Republicans have attempted to hold up individual programs and say, “Isn’t this stupid?” Of course, that message is only suucessful if the audience similarly agrees that the program is stupid.

Yesterday, at a Democratic getaway (which cost $100,000, by the way), Obama defended the stimulus plan and even — what’s that — improvised:

When you start asking, “Well what is it that’s such a problem, that you’re seeing? Where’s all the waste in spending? Well, you know, you want to replace the federal fleet with hybrid cars.”

Well, why wouldn’t we want to do that? That creates jobs for people who make those cars. It saves the federal government energy, it saves the taxpayers energy.

Then you get the argument, “Well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill.” What do you think a stimulus is?  That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point.

Republicans have been pushing more of the same: tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts. For businesses and for the wealthy. But businesses have shown that they have no tolerance for spending money right now. They’ll take a tax cut and save it rather than use it for new production, or investment, or to hire workers. The wealthy have all the necessities of life they need. Rather than spend a tax cut on a new car or a new house, they’ll save it. The marginal value of a 10% tax cut is greater for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person. The wealthy person doesn’t need another Rolls. The poor person needs to eat.

Part of the Republicans’ problem with the stimulus package is that it involves the government doing things beyond fighting wars. It’s a generalization to say that Republicans hate government, but certainly part of what it means to be conservative is wanting “less government.” Grover Norquist is, of course, the proprietor of wanting to make the government so small he could drown it in a bathtub, which is why the government was so mismanaged for so many years. It’s hard to do a job well when you don’t think that job is worth doing at all. Given the choice between action or inaction, conservatives have preferred inaction (except, of course, when action increases businesses’ profits, as when Congress voted to take up United Airlines’ pension plan). One conservative pundit last week (who may or may not be able to speak for all conservatives and may or many not also be an idiot) claimed that the government has never created jobs, that government can only destroy jobs. It’s like dealing with an economic al-Qaeda: Republicans don’t want to negotiate, they don’t want to be bipartisan. They want to get exactly what they want, in full. They’ve grown accustomed to that after eight years. (Democrats have the exact opposite problem: they’ll capitulate at the drop of a hat. They’ll volunteer to capitulate if no one has asked them. There’s even a picture of Harry Reid in the dictionary next to the word “pusillanimous.” Someone needs to tell the Democrats that Ronald Reagan stopped being the president a long time ago.)

It’s true that, given enough time, the economy could probably fix itself (of course, John Maynard Keynes famously said that, in the long run, we’re all dead). But while we’re waiting for the free market to operate, people are getting laid off and losing their homes. Can we morally permit ourselves to let the economy remain in shambles for an unknown amount of time just to prove a point about capitalism? Of course not; it doesn’t make sense to do something just because it’s liberal or just because it’s conservative. We should do things because they work; Obama said as much in his inaugural address (though, admittedly, he was referring to more government versus less government).

Right now, the free market is broken. Consumers don’t want to spend at any price (and “any price” here means “any price that would be beneficial to the market”; certainly businesses could offer their goods for free, but that doesn’t exactly help us out of a recession). The cycle is supposed to work like this: a recession occurs, consumers stop spending, businesses lower their prices, consumers start spending again, business make more money, they start hiring people, consumers get employed again, business raise their prices, and we’re on our way back to 99-cent gas and Hummers at a 2-for-1 discount.

Our recession is working like this: consumers stop spending, businesses lower their prices, businesses lay more people off in order to save money, consumers stop spending even more as some of them get laid off, business revenue decreases, business lay more people off to save money, and so on. It’s a downward spiral that the market can’t correct. The market needs a fresh infusion of cash that just isn’t going to be coming any time soon.

Monetarism has failed. The discount rate — the interest rate that banks pay for short-term loans to other banks — is between 0% and 0.25%. It can’t go any lower, and banks still are reluctant to lend to other banks. This isn’t an issue strictly of price; it’s also one of psychology. Until businesses are ready to produce again, government must step in and fill the void to prevent the recession from getting any worse than it already is. Republicans criticize the size of the stimulus and bring up the issue of how we’re saddling future generations with this debt (these same people, by the way, were remarkably silent as the debt doubled under George W. Bush, Henry Hyde, Tom DeLay, and Bill Frist). They forget the other component of Keynesian economics: once the economy has recovered, the government must increase taxes and cut spending in order to pay back the money it borrowed. Let’s hope Congress doesn’t forget that part.

Update: Daily Kos has an interesting article analyzing media coverage of the stimulus bill. The Liberal Media, as it turns out, are not liberal at all. “Republican lawmakers outnumbered Democratic lawmakers 75 to 41 on cable news interviews.” In addition to Congressional Democrats themselves, cable news networks must be informed that Democrats won the election. Also, some of the Democrats who appeared on cable news networks were “Blue Dog” Democrats who side with Republicans on economic issues. And pretty much every other issue. Why are they Democrats, again?

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.

Gonzales Alive and Well, But Needs a Nose Job

Scott South is a satirical writer who will be contributing regular works to Demockracy’s commentary section.

As I explored my first piece for Demockracy, many thoughts occurred to me. First, I thought that Dubya is too much of an abomination for me to even think of writing about him any more. I’ve had a bellyful of him, and good riddance. Cheney—maybe later. But who can I laugh at right now?

As I gaze wistfully into my recollections of the Bush era, the eight years of Letterman’s Great Moments in Presidential Speeches, a tear stings my left eye and a sob escapes my lips as I rue the passing of the good old days. Never again will there be so many unscrupulous people who are so stupid and so satisfying to make fun of in print. So who—I thought today while rolling my blank sheet into the clackety old Remington (yeah, right)—is left to excoriate? The horror…the horror.

But wait. Not so fast. Whatever happened to Gonzales? Just when he had become the finest court fool since Spiro Agnew—good for at least a half-dozen scathing columns—he disappeared into oblivion. Fortunately, the other day I discovered some surveys in a mayonnaise jar on Funk & Wagnalls’ porch that reveal a new craze seizing the nation: imagining Alberto Gonzales in all kinds of unlikely scenarios, all of them outside the government.

“And the more bizarre the job, the better,” one respondent said. “He belongs anywhere except the damned government.”

Here are the top five jobs or scenarios the American people find most suitable for Gonzales:

1. New host of The Apprentice

A half-dozen apprentices sit at a conference table with Gonzales at the head.

“You’re fired!” he shouts, tossing his hair.

“Sir,” says a dorky-looking 23-year-old man, “you said I’m superlative in every dimension of business performance. I—I just don’t understand how you can do this to me. It’s not fair. These other people here are all losers. I’m the only one who can generate three spreadsheets on two printers in under a minute and work 120 hours a week.”

“You also believe in counterproductive things like fairness, merit and justice.” Gonzales chops his arm down to the table like a guillotine blade. “You’re fired!”

“What about me?” says a bimbo.

“You’re fired! And you, you’re fired too.”

“Wha–?”

“You’re fired!”

2. Unemployed Pinocchio

Gonzales wanders about Capitol Hill unemployed, sporting a nose two feet long and growing, due to extensive alleged lying to Congress. Senator Ted Kennedy happens by.

“Hey bread-stick face,” he shouts, “what happened, forgot where you live? Or just following your nose to the nearest liars’ convention?”

“Senator, I don’t recall.”

“Yeah? You’d better start recalling, you homeless a**wipe, or you’ll be sucking up storm-drain water through that schnozzola like an elephant, just to survive.”

“Oh yeah? That’s what you think! En garde!” Gonzales lunges and pokes the Senator in the eye with his nose. “Take that!”

“OW! You disingenuous sack of ****!”

Gonzales, enraged by the impudence, sticks the Senator in both eyes repeatedly like a woodpecker. “Take that, Camelot man! And that!”

“Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Ow! Oh yeah? Why, you…”

3. Senior partner in a law firm

“Counselor,” an associate says to Gonzales, “You took this case two months ago and you haven’t read the briefs, and you haven’t even spoken to our client? That’s preposterous! Do you realize the constitutional ramifications if we lose this trial?”

“Denny Crane.”

“Huh?”

“Denny Crane, from Boston Legal. That’s me. Who cares about the facts of this stupid case? All I have to do is show up and the prosecution will be so intimidated they’ll wither in their seats. And, might I add, you’ve got great boobs for a midget.”

“Why, you filthy old man, if you weren’t such a pathetic airhead with Alzheimer’s I’d bring you up on charges of sexual harassment, you perv.”

“Denny Crane.”

4. Captain of the Star Ship Enterprise

“Spock—what are all those Federation Star Ships doing out there? I…want…answers…Mr. Spock.”

“It appears, from recent communications, that they are here to assist us in our mission to penetrate Romulan coordinates in order to locate the missing Star Ship Constitution, Captain.”

“Ohuru, please instruct the other Star Ships to leave. This is my turf, damn it.”

“Aye aye, Captain.”

“Al, have you gone mad?” the doctor says.

“I have a mission and I don’t want a lot of bleeding-heart Star Ship captains cluttering it up. Ohuru, tell them I’ll fire all fazers on them if they don’t go away. Bones, I see you glaring at me. Tell me I’m not right, Bones.”

“Dammit, Al, I’m a doctor, not a corrupt bureaucrat!”

“All right, the Federation Star Ships are gone. Scotty, increase warp speed and divert auxiliary power to the main shields. We’re going in.”

“She can’t take much more of this, Captain! We’re doing warrup eight as it is!”

Women and the Obama Administration

The election of Barack Obama has signaled a potential turning point for the people of the United States. Millions have been inspired by Obama’s hopeful message of change, and for the first time ever, a man of color occupies the nation’s top position. Many Americans of all classes and creeds, to say nothing of race, are looking forward in hope for an improved economy, an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a more respectable reputation abroad. With all this talk of change, however, more attention needs to be paid to the concerns of women in the United States. With so many competing pressures at home and abroad, many women’s groups and feminists fear that gender equality will not be a priority of the Obama administration. This essay intends to explore three imminent problems American women face today: pay inequity, lack of representation in leadership positions, and limitations on the right to choice. Congress and past presidents have given some attention to these matters in the past; however much work awaits us if there is to be significant improvement in these areas. Under the new Obama administration, there may never be a better time to make such progress.

While the women’s movement is not as active as it was during its heyday of the 1960s and 1970s, women have by no means achieved an equal status to men. One of the most frustrating problems facing women today is unequal pay. Although employers are barred from discrimination based on gender, and equal pay has been on the books since 1963, women still on average make 77 cents for the man’s dollar. Race and class intersect with gender to structurally disadvantage poor women of color the most. While some middle-class white women can almost touch the glass ceiling, far too many working-class women with darker skin tend to scrub the floors below. There are numerous reasons for women’s lower wages, including but not limited to: the fact that discrimination is extremely difficult to prove in court, the devaluation of women’s work, inadequate family leave policies, and ideals of masculinity/femininity that prevent women from occupying the “top” positions. Solutions to the problem must be multifaceted and should address inequalities that occur at different stages of life. For example, girls need encouragement to develop their interests in traditionally “masculine” enterprises like math and science, and women who become mothers should be entitled to a reasonable amount of paid leave.

Currently, The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) only grants twelve unpaid weeks to employees who wish to care for a family member, although some employers may choose to offer more time off and pay for it. While the FMLA represents some progress in addressing women and family’s needs, the law is embarrassingly stingy compared to the more generous policies of other western countries. In the United Kingdom, for example, women are entitled to 26 weeks of paid maternity leave. Also, paternity leave should be encouraged. Providing leave to only mothers reinforces the idea that women are and should be the primary caregivers to all children. If we strive to make care giving an equally shared responsibility in order to open up opportunities to women, then men should also be incorporated into such leave policies. Clearly, U.S. family leave policy is severely out of touch and inadequate to meet the real needs of working women and families. Family leave policies are generally very politically popular, and there is real opportunity for significant bills to be passed in this area over next four years under President Obama.

In addition to pay equity issues, women are also severely underrepresented in public service. At the date of this writing, women hold a mere 16% of congressional seats and governed only 8 states. In most other forms of political participation, women are equal or almost equal to men, and in some cases even surpass their male counterparts (e.g., women tend to vote at higher rates compared to men). However, when it comes to the most powerful and prestigious positions in our society, such as elected officials, the number of women is dismally low. Spectators have attributed the low number of women in office to a plethora of reasons, including the political opportunity structure, gender discrimination, and the fact that women simply do not run at the same rates as men. However, childcare responsibilities may represent the primary reason why women dangle at the bottom of the political rope. Women are more likely than men to begin their political career later in life after their children are grown. Thus, politically minded women usually lack time (and energy) to gain the requisite experience needed for higher offices. However, with the election of a black president, along with Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin’s historic bids, women may have more of a chance than ever to break the glass ceiling of politics. At the very least, the 2008 elections taught young girls that the President doesn’t always have to be white and male. The President can be black or possibly female. Aside from providing excellent role models, the Obama administration should encourage women to run for office by providing extra support for mothers. As with pay equity issues, paid family leave is essential and a compensation program for elder care-givers (the large majority who are women) might be considered. In addition, because the seeds of Senators and Presidents are first planted at the grassroots level, Obama’s famous technological grassroots organizing techniques could be expanded to help recruit women candidates to run at all levels, including for offices such as in the city council and the state legislator. Many groups, such as Emily’s List, already have the infrastructure in which to invest new techniques. With any luck, such a program would help breed tomorrow’s female Senators, Governors, and even Presidents.

Finally, many women also lack control over their own bodies. Reproductive rights and freedom have slowly but steadily been eroded over the years, and Roe v. Wade may hang by a thread. There are a plethora of restrictions on access to abortion in some areas of the country, and the women who often are the least likely to be able to access abortion services are poor women and women of color. In general, poor women are more likely than affluent women to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, either because of indigency or the lack of reproductive providers in their area. Poor women are also more likely than affluent women to have abortions later in their pregnancies, which increases the likelihood of complications and health risks. In the area of abortion rights, President Obama may have the power through appointment to help shape broader access to abortion in the coming decades. He can appoint strong pro-choice justices to the Supreme and federal courts and put pressure on certain states to provide more funding to indigent women who want or need abortions. Obama may also consider becoming a champion for policies that may prevent unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place. Such policies would promote comprehensive sexual education for all public school children, which stresses protection and accountability. Abstinence-only education in schools has been shown to be inadequate and ineffective in preventing premarital sex. Such policies would also make contraceptives more widely available to at-risk children. Also, in order to prevent abortions, women need to be able to freely choose to become mothers or not. Without adequate public assistance, childcare subsidies, and paid family leave, many women feel forced by their economic situation to terminate a pregnancy rather than live in poverty. We have to remember that reproductive freedom is not only about the right to abortion, but also about providing women with the means, resources, and opportunities to choose whether to raise a child.

This essay points to three major issues that affect women’s lives–pay inequity, lack of representation in the political world, and restrictions on reproductive freedom. Although women’s issues may not be perceived as important as they once were, the urgency of problems that afflict women in 2009 is just as strong as it was several decades ago. While the substance of each issue discussed is different, the roots of these problems are similar. Women are still the primary caregivers to children and elder parents, despite the fact that both men and women have increasingly expressed agreement with egalitarian ideas about sharing domestic responsibility. To compound the problem, women are not allotted enough reproductive liberty to freely choose motherhood and are not allotted political liberty to be represented by their peers. Additionally, the problems discussed are not discrete, independent issues, but rather are very much interrelated to one other. More women in public office are likely to encourage more family-friendly policy, and attention to reproductive freedom may increase. More reproductive freedom is likely to allow women to take advantage of the same opportunities as men, including moving up in the working and political world. These problems and their solutions thus cannot be addressed individually in a vacuum, but must be addressed together as part of a comprehensive plan to elevate the status of women.

The inequalities women face in the United States are symptomatic of an unequal democracy. If women do not possess as much power, influence, and control over their own lives as men do, then we cannot say that “we the people” rule our country. Obama’s election inspired a hope for a more egalitarian society in which freedom and prosperity could flourish. In order to accomplish this utopian vision, attention needs to be paid to what Simone de Beauvoir termed the “second sex.” Women’s needs should be taken into account, not only to raise the status of women, but also to create a society of true equals. I have hope that the next four years can begin to lead us in that very direction.

Federalism and Medical Marijuana: A Match Made in Confusion

Federalism is a funny thing. At its best, federalism provides for states’ individual personalities and needs. At its worst, federalism means “no one really knows who’s in charge.” Federalism led to several “nullification” crises in the 1820s when some Southern states, backed by southerner John C. Calhoun (vice president at the time), believed they had the power to “nullify” acts of Congress. Of course, they didn’t, and the states stewed for forty more years until they had a little fight about it.

But, Federalism is here to stay, mostly because it prevents the concentration of all powers in the hands of the federal government. The phrase “United States of America” should be taken more literally than it is: the Founding Fathers thought that this country would, literally, be a bunch of disparate states united by the federal government. In Article I of the Constitution, they laid out Congress’ specific powers: what it can, and cannot, do. Congress’ powers are limited only to those ennumerated in Article I. In 1791, the amendments within the Bill of Rights were ratified, further limiting the federal government’s power. Of note to us now is the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This is important to remember: if there’s a power someone out there can think of, and that power is not specifically granted to Congress, then the state governments or the people themselves have that power. Take liquor control: there’s no federal law governing alcoholic beverages because regulating liquor is not one of Congress’ specifically-granted powers; therefore, that power defaults to the states.

Sure, great history lesson, but this is all so boring. Does any of this have a point?

Let’s begin in 1970, with the passage of the Controlled Substances Act. This marked the beginning of the War on Drugs. The Controlled Substances Act clearly defined what drugs were always illegal, sometimes illegal, and legal. It divides drugs into five categories, or schedules. Schedule I drugs have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical value. Schedule II drugs have a high potential for abuse and physical or psychological dependence, but have accepted medical value. And so on down to Schedule V, which are drugs with a low potential for abuse and limited psychological or physical dependence. Marijuana is classified as a Schedule I narcotic, meaning it has a high propensity for abuse and no accepted medical value, as far as the U.S. Congress is concerned.

But the U.S. Congress isn’t always correct. In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215, which permitted physicians to legally prescribe marijuana as a treatment and further permitted a patient or a patient’s caregiver to grow marijuana plants for the patient’s medical use. Proposition 215 has been the basis for many a federalist showdown over who has authority in the realm of legal drugs. The U.S. Justice Department has refused to recognize the legitimacy of Prop. 215, and as such, continues to raid medical marijuana dispensaries in California because, hey, federal law always trumps state law (this is the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution).

The U.S. Supreme Court, while not ruling specifically on the issue of California’s statute, has twice upheld the supremacy of Congress when it comes to drug enforcement. In 2005’s Gonzales v. Raich, the Supreme Court used some curious reasoning and the commerce clause to find that Congress can regulate marijuana cultivation, even if the marijuana never crosses state lines (disclosure: I wrote the above-linked article).

As much as proponents of legal marijuana may not like to hear it, the law is very cut and dry: when federal law and state law are in conflict, federal law always wins. In this case, California law says that marijuana has medical value and should be prescribed legally. Federal law completely disagrees. Federal law wins. This is most likely what the U.S. Supreme Court will find if they take up the case of San Diego County.

San Diego County and San Bernadino County, two counties in southern California, have been trying for the past three years to overturn Prop. 215. They argue that they should not be required to do something under state law which is illegal under federal law. California’s Fourth Circuit Court disagreed, upholding the legality of California’s statute. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal. Now, San Diego and San Bernadino County are taking their fight to the top and asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against California.

Which is probably what they will do. As for the Controlled Substances Act itself, marijuana has been shown to have some medical value, but these studies are routinely overlooked by anti-drug advocates who, for some reason, believe that marijuana is the most dangerous drug ever invented. These people are also in charge of our nation’s drug policy. Not only is marijuana not that dangerous (the risk of overdose is zero, for example), but there are many other drugs that are far more dangerous (in the link above to a Rolling Stone article, the author points out that the government ignored the real danger of methamphetamine for years, preferring instead to fight the make-believe scourge of marijuana). The War on Drugs has escalated even into the free speech zone, causing people to be prosecuted under the Controlled Substances Act merely for advocating the use of marijuana or for selling devices that could be used to smoke marijuana.

California, though, is not alone. Other states and municipalities have attempted to circumvent the federal ban in other ways. The most popular method is to make arrest and prosecution for marijuana possession a city police department’s lowest enforcement priority — below traffic tickets, below jaywalking. San Francisco currently has such a policy. The city of Denver passed a referendum in 2005 permitting marijuana possession, even though state law still forbids it. When state, federal, and municipal laws conflict, there’s an enforcement problem. It gets even worse when the people doing some of the enforcing fundamentally disagree with the law. And what happens when the law forbids something that many people do, regardless? Should all those people go to jail, or should the law be re-examined? In Ontario, Canada, a 2008 study showed that 14% of adults used marijuana in 2005. That’s a lot of people; are they all criminals beyond the definition of “criminal” as “one who breaks the law”?

Even if potential Surgeon General Dr. Sanjay Gupta doesn’t think marijuana should be legalized (and for good reasons, too: Dr. Gupta acknowledges that smoking anything is bad for your lungs, and some users report anxiety or depression), he recognizes that some studies have shown marijuana to be an effective treatment for nausea or even Alzheimer’s disease. Marijuana is not illegal because it is bad (cigarettes and alcohol are far worse for your health); it is illegal because a minority of people (the same people who brought you alcohol prohibition) seventy years ago convinced Congress that it was immoral and evil, and that taboo has endured.

Federal marijuana policy is very childish and must be changed, but the Supreme Court is not the appropriate place for relief. If the Court takes San Diego’s case, it will undoubtedly mean the end of medical marijuana legislation for the states. No, appropriate relief must come from Congress, which must remove marijuana from its list of Schedule I narcotics (which is also populated by heroin, mescaline, peyote, and LSD; even cocaine has accepted medical uses!). Rep. Barney Frank took a tremendous step last year when he introduced legislation to permit the possession of small amounts of marijuana by adults (disclosure: I wrote the above-linked article). In the meantime, the people who actually do rely on medical marijuana to get through their day (which, it turns out, are AIDS patients who find marijuana much more effective than the anti-nausea medication they must take with their AIDS drug cocktails) will be ill-served by their government.

The Inauguration and Federal Holidays

I know I’m not the first to bring up the significance of this upcoming week, with the inauguration of our first African American president falling the day after Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. On January 19, our banks and post offices will close to honor a man who truly was a martyr for his cause. On January 20, our citizens and others around the world will turn their attention to the United States Capitol Building where Barack Obama will say the 39-word phrase that will make him the elected leader of the free world.

So at this intersection of celebration, I began to wonder how Dr. King would feel about how his holiday is being celebrated.

Well, after much thought, I’ve decided that I don’t think he would be very happy.

From what I’ve studied about Dr. King, I believe that he would be disappointed at the fact that his whole life, legacy, and accomplishment has been reduced by many to four words: “I have a dream.” I’d be surprised if any child or adult could quote more than a line or two from this famous speech. To most, just like President’s Day, it’s another day off from school or work.  And while I’m sure Dr. King would be very proud that America has elected a man with African heritage, he probably wouldn’t be too pleased with the current state of affairs for many black communities in America, which are facing a violent crime epidemic.

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day became a federal holiday in 1983 when it was reluctantly signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, 15 years after Dr. King was killed. But the new holiday was not accepted everywhere without opposition. Many of the early critics of this holiday, especially in certain areas south of the Mason Dixon line, were against it mainly because of Dr. King’s race; and that was the reality of the time. Racism ran rampant in many parts of the country – hate crimes, violence, and segregated schools, pools, and drinking fountains. So many opposed the holiday – and the man – based on the misguided ideals of an earlier era.

However, many legitimately felt that King shouldn’t be singled out for the accomplishments of many in the civil rights era. Arguably, there are and were equally deserving individuals, such as Cesar Chavez, who had a similar impact with the Hispanic community of the time. The only other federal holidays commemorating an individual are Columbus Day and Washington’s Birthday, and the later has evolved into Presidents Day. Many felt that while Dr. King’s life was significant and full of accomplishment, it was not quite as prestigious as the finder of the new world or the founder of the free world.

And even when the law was passed, some states chose not observe Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. In Arizona and New Hampshire, the holiday broadly includes Civil Rights Day. In Virginia, the holiday used to be called Lee-Jackson-King Day, to honor the two Confederate Civil War generals from Virginia along with King (the irony was not lost on all, and was changed in 2000). Utah called the holiday “Human Rights Day” until 2000. South Carolina became the last state to honor the holiday in 2000. Prior to this, federal employees could choose between a menu of three holidays, one honoring Dr. King, and the other two honoring legends of the Confederacy.

Arizona, New Hampshire, and Utah (Virginia and South Carolina not so much) were definitely on to something. As was the U.S. Congress when it charged the Corporation for National and Community Service  with promoting the Martin Luther King Day holiday as a de facto National Day of Service. However, unfortunately, the idea has not yet caught in the same way as Fourth of July parades or Memorial Day picnics.  Why celebrate one individual who was part of a much bigger principle? Why even focus on one movement as it relates to one race? Why not focus on everything involved with civil rights for all of humanity? Why not focus on the evils of oppression and the spirit of equality? Why not focus on service to those less fortunate?

In my opinion, it has to do with the political correctness surrounding racism and people being too quick to accuse others of being racist. And while most of the sacred cows of America have been slaughtered long ago, racism is still an issue, an excuse, and a knee-jerk reaction for a lot of people. This is especially true of many who, despite the election of an African American President, can’t seem to move beyond the obvious. They don’t seem to realize that the dedication and bravery of one African American preacher from Atlanta should be taken in context of the bigger picture of human rights for all.

Of course, many who would offer such a suggestion would be quickly label as bigoted or prejudiced by those who can’t seem to move beyond the ghosts of the 1960s. “If you’re against a holiday for Dr. King, you must be against all Black people.” Any rational individual knows this simply is not true, but this is an automatic reflex for many.

Let me assure you, I have no intention of diminishing the significance of the accomplishments of Dr. King or of writing some sort of strongly-worded letter to Congress to get the holiday changed. But with the inauguration at hand, should we not also turn our attention to and take inspiration from the holiday that will come about a month later?

This year on February 16, we will celebrate Presidents Day, originally established to honor George Washington, but now expanded to include all the Presidents who have held the position.  As of January 20, this collective group of Presidents will now include one Barack Hussein Obama.

We need to move beyond this tunnel vision. We need to lift up both holidays. Let’s make Presidents Day something more than a day off from work and Martin Luther King, Jr. Day more than just “I have a dream.” When Barack Obama is sworn in on January 20, yes, it will be a little bit about the day before. However, it will also be about four weeks later.

« Previous Page — Next Page »