The Johnson Post

New and Improved...

2011-04-08T15:59:00.000-06:00

The Johnson Post is moving April 11th to www.manythingsconsidered.com

Come on over and thanks for reading!

Marc Johnson

Survey Says

2011-03-22T08:00:00.001-06:00

Don't Know Much About...Us I've been fortunate to have the opportunity to travel a fair amount - Europe several times, South America, Canada - and after every trip I've returned thinking its good to be home, but man we sure don't know much about the rest of the world. I remember a trip to Canada a few years ago and engaging in serious conversation with friendly Canadians who seemed to be up on everything happening in the USA from our politics to popular culture. By contrast, most Americans couldn't find Saskatoon with a GPS device let alone name the Canadian Prime Minister - Stephen Harper - or that the national capitol is Ottawa, not Montreal or Toronto. Now it turns out we don't know much about ourselves, either. Newsweek has surveyed 1,000 Americans on the most basic details of our history, government and politics. We flunked. Badly. The questions aren't exactly PhD level, either, but are questions that are asked in the official U.S. citizenship test. Questions like: What happened at the Constitutional Convention? How could 65% of those surveyed not know that the Founders wrote the U.S. Constitution at the Constitutional Convention? Or, how about this. Fully 88% in the survey couldn't name one person who authored the Federalist Papers. Hint: his wife's name was Dolley, as in Madison. Maybe those 65% know her donuts and cakes better. And, don't ask what the Federalist Papers were. I've railed in this space in the past about America's historical ignorance, but 29% not being able to name the current vice president or 73% not know why we "fought" the Cold War. This isn't funny. It is worrying.

Newsweek blames several factors for American ignorance, including a generally complex political system that unlike Europe tends to spread control among local, state and federal governments. I guess this is confusing and there is much to keep track of, but that hardly seems an excuse for the fundamental lack of knowledge exposed in the survey.

The decentralized education system gets some blame. What we teach in Idaho they might not teach in Maryland. Some of the blame should go, I think, to those who have de-emphasized history, social studies and the humanities in favor of science and math. Kids need it all, in big doses.

And there is the income and media reality. A growing percentage of Americans are poor, not of the middle class. Poorer Americans have less access to information and knowledge. In Europe, where a larger share of the population lives in the middle, people are generally better educated and much more knowledgeable about their politics and government.

The mass media is both part of the problem and could offer a slice of the solution, but we mostly have a pure market driven media that features much more American Idol than Meet the Press. It is, after all, difficult to take politics seriously when so much of it is trivialized over the air and on the web.

The Newsweek analysis concludes, and maybe this is the good news, “the problem is ignorance, not stupidity.“ One expert who has studied this American ignorance says, "we suffer from a lack of information rather than a lack of ability.”

The real problem here isn't knowing James Madison authored many of the Federalist Papers, it is not knowing enough - as the current budget debate in Washington, D.C. makes so clear - about our federal government and our political system. It's impossible to assess, for example, what must be done to fix the budget if we have no idea how the government spends and taxes.

Survey after survey says Americans want Congress to cut the budget by reducing foreign aid and by stamping out that old standby waste, fraud and abuse. At the same time they say whatever you do don't touch Social Security or Medicare where the real money gets spent. Too many politicians pander this ignorance and we get the endless debates we now witness in Congress.

Simple fact: Americans need information and real knowledge to make sense of their government and then they must care enough to act on the knowledge. Ignorance isn't a strategy for a great country.

Guns and Porn, Oh My

2011-03-21T07:00:00.001-06:00

Solutions in Search of a Problem The Idaho Senate will this week - choose your metaphor - cock the hammer, reload or take aim at the increasingly controversial issue of guns on the state's college campuses. The House has already passed the legislation, the Senate may think twice. Boise State University, the largest Idaho school, where football tailgate parties are arguably even more popular than guns. has played the economic card by raising concerns that events on the campus may be impacted by a proposed state law allowing students, faculty too, to pack a piece to a concert, football game or poetry reading, not to mention biology class. Idaho is racing Texas to see which state can get the campus gun toting legislation in place first. Texas Gov. Rick Perry has said he'll sign legislation working its way through, as Molly Ivins used to say, the Texas Leg. Perry is the same governor who suggested a while back that the federal stimulus legislation gives Texas a right to consider secession. Fully armed obviously. The Los Angeles Times visited the huge University of Texas campus in Austin recently, a place with an awful history of gun violence, and found a mixed reception for the campus gun legislation. In 1966 a student gunman at UT climbed to the top of the campus clock tower and systematically killed 14 people. Ancient history, I guess, in an age when proponents of such legislation argue that having more guns on campus will actually improve safety. One Texas professor told the Times he welcomed the proposed gun law and said he'd definitely consider taking his piece to class with him if it passes. Not a professor to argue with about a grade, I suppose. At another Texas school, Sam Houston State, a new research project found considerably less support among students. On a scale of zero being not comfortable at all and 100 being as comfortable as you can get, the Sam Houston students clocked in - or is it Glocked in - at 39. A similar survey at a Washington school produced a 33 comfort score. May just be that the students who are, pardon the expression, the target of this campus safety initiative aren't feeling all that comfortable about how safe they'll be in English 101. It used to be all you had to worry about was staying awake in class or understanding Milton. In times of severe economic turmoil like those faced in Idaho and most other states at the moment, I've noticed a curious legislative phenomenon. With limited ability for legislators to think big about new buildings or highways, they tend to find solutions to problems that may not really exist. The gun legislation, stoked by the National Rifle Association in Idaho, Texas and a dozen other states, seems to fall in that category. College administrators, the State Board of Education and law enforcement leaders - those closest to the vibe on a campus - are universally opposed to the gun legislation that has only come forward because, well, the NRA says its needed to protect our Second Amendment rights. As one Texas student said, college is already stressful enough, why add the prospect for even more worry by affirmatively introducing guns to the campus scene? State Representative Cherie Buckner-Webb of Boise said it pretty well: "One can only imagine a college classroom or a campus administrative situation where heated arguments about strongly held political beliefs or disputes about grades or even parking issues result in the use of a concealed weapon." Meanwhile, Idaho legislators are also debating a bill to require more actions from public libraries to filter content on computers that library patrons - as in the tax paying public - utilize in vast numbers every day. Another solution in search of a problem. Full disclosure, I am currently the president of the Boise Public Library Board, and we have long had in place a perfectly sensible policy about computer use. If a parent is concerned that a youngster might go where they shouldn't on the Internet, we take steps to ensure that won't happen. But, we also stay away from being the Internet nanny for adults who presumably are smart enough to make their own decisions about how to use a computer. Both these pieces of legislation are in the one-size-fits-all category of legislating. Not content to leave it to local library boards in individual Idaho communities to figure out the best approach in their neighborhoods and unwilling to trust a college president in Twin Falls or Moscow to know enough about their campus environment to keep them as safe as possible, legislative solutions must be found to non-existent problems. Guns and computers. Strange that in a largely educational environment - a college campus and a public library - some legislators want virtually unlimited access to one and to substantially limit access to the other.

The Hat is Back...

2011-03-20T06:45:00.003-06:00

Adjustment Bureau for Headware I used to think it old fashioned that my dad always wore a hat. He had a gray one, a brown one, I think, and I vaguely remember a dapper looking summertime straw hat. I never remember seeing him in a cap, but hardly ever remember him not wearing a hat. Dad would be happy to know that hats are reportedly back in style and I find I'm now just as old fashioned with my hats as I once thought him to be with his. The new movie, The Adjustment Bureau, some say, is popular culture proof that the hat is back. Maybe. I think Matt Damon looks pretty good in a hat, but have been told his hat is better than the movie. You can Google men's hats and find a thousand places to buy them on the Internet. My favorite store is John Helmer in Portland. Great hats. I once bought a hat - a brown Steton "Gun Club" model - at a hat shop in Milwaukee called Jac Donges Hats and Gloves. I still have the hat, but sadly Jac's place is now a Subway shop. Bogart wore hats and still got the girl except when he let her go. Al Capone deserved a black one, but his were often white - the gangster fedora. Don Draper, the mysterious ad man on Mad Men, favors the narrow brim job that sits high on his head. Johnny Depp wears a hat once in a while and looks good, even to guys. I have a picture hanging in my office of Teddy Roosevelt's visit to Sandpoint, Idaho. Every man in the photo, and there are a lot of them, has a hat, Teddy included. Franklin Roosevelt wore hats and Harry Truman, too. John Kennedy reportedly didn't like hats, almost refused to wear one and when you see JFK with a hat he's often holding it not wearing it. Date the demise of the snap brim to Camelot. Hats made a brief return under Lyndon Johnson, but folks often made fun of his Stetson "Open Road" model. I liked it. May get one of those one day. So, back to my hat wearing father. I cherish a picture of him taken in about 1940, I guess. He's wearing a hat, Bogart-like, big smile on his face (hats do that) and standing in front a very shiny Model A Ford. I like to think he was about to get in that Ford, pick up mom and take her dancing. If I had a Model A Ford, I'd wear one of my hats while driving it. Like father, like son. Maybe hats are back. But, then again, maybe they never really go out of style. Neil Steinberg wrote a book about all this. He dealt with the Kennedy hat issue and argued that hats went out in the 1960's when younger guys decided not to conform with the styles of the older generation. What goes around comes around, they say, and today wearing a hat has become a mark of non-conformance. Maybe you just need to be a little old fashioned, an individualist, to wear one these days. You should try it. Just take it off in a elevator, especially if a lady comes on board. Touch the brim to acknowledge a friend or someone you would like to be a friend and, like Bogart, maybe a Lauren Bacall look-alike will find you charming, witty and worthy of wearing a hat so you can doff it to her. It couldn't hurt.

Another War

2011-03-19T07:00:00.001-06:00

The No Debate No Fly Zone The truly amazing thing about the "no fly zone" policy adopted over the last few days by the United States and the United Nations is not that it will be imposed on Gaddafi's Libya, but rather that it was done with virtually no domestic debate, no Congressional action and little effort to bring the American public along. I know it has become a political non-issue, a quaint detail of American history, but Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution says: "Congress shall have the power...to declare war..." Make no mistake we are going to war with Libya. The American policeman is walking the Middle East beat, again. Moreover we are headed into another open-ended, frightfully expensive engagement with scarcely any attempt to define the short, let alone long-term objectives. Set aside for the moment the legitimate debate over whether the "no fly zone" strategy actually works. Might it be appropriate for the president and the Congress to define, in a good deal more detail, just what we hope to accomplish by engaging in a shooting war in Libya. American anti-terrorism experts are already warning that Gaddafi is entirely capable of retaliating with some non-conventional response - read terror attack - while we spend an estimated $100 to $300 million a week to try and use air power to enforce order on the ground in Libya. It's estimated that the initial attack on Libya's command and control capabilities could cost a billion dollars. Meanwhile, the Congress is virtually paralyzed in a budget debate that may well shut down the federal government in three weeks. We'll spend millions to enforce a UN resolution on Libya with no debate, while the Congress runs the government by continuing resolution and bogs down in a completely partisan argument over funding laughably small budget lines for National Public Radio and the National Weather Service. While the Obama Administration can claim an international consensus to use force against Gaddafi's military, only one guess is required in the game who will pay most of the cost. The world's greatest deliberative body - the U.S. Senate, where foreign policy used to be a regular concern - can find plenty of time for posturing over who is responsible for the budget deadlock, but couldn't find even 15 minutes to debate whether the country ought to send more brave, young Americans into another desert war. We can all lament the disaster of the Libyan nut job waging war on his own people, but since we've equipped Arab air forces from Saudi Arabia to Egypt to Jordan, why not let the vaunted Arab League deal with one of their own? Have we no leverage over the King of Jordan or the princes of Arabia? The most sensible voice in the administration, soon to be gone Defense Secretary Robert Gates, may have made his concerns about the "no fly" strategy know too early, while the rest of the administration struggled to figure out a response. "Let's call a spade a spade," Gates said earlier in March, "a no fly zone begins with an attack on Libya." He called it a "big operation in a big country" and warned of the unknown unintended consequences of yet more American military engagement in a Middle Eastern country. We are left to hope that in a week or two no American carrier pilot is sitting in Gaddafi's custody after being shot down attempting to enforce a no fly zone with no defined objective, no end date and no obvious concern about the human and financial cost...to the United States. The United States time and again undertakes military action with the expectation that it will be short, painless and sanitary and that the outcome will be entirely to our liking. Funny thing: our wars never seems to work out the way we envision them.

The Great War

2011-03-18T06:30:00.004-06:00

It Didn't End Anything... The "war to end all wars" didn't. In fact the case can be persuasively made that what before World War II was commonly called "the great war" really began a vicious spiral of nearly continuous war, killing and destruction that made the 20th Century the most violent century. I got to thinking about this after reading a moving tribute in the Washington Post this week to the last American veteran of the great war, Frank Woodruff Buckles. Buckles died recently at the ripe old age of 110. What things he saw in his long life. Paul Duggan's Post story made the point that Buckles, a West Virginia boy, was among the nearly 5 million Americans who were in uniform in 1917 and 1918. More than 116,000 of them died. Frank was the last one; a link in a now broken chain back to a time when there was no GI Bill, virtually no health care for returning doughboys and little acknowledgment from either the government or the public. By 1930 the war was thought by many in the United States to have been a great mistake, a fight not ours that had scarred - and scared - a generation. Isolationism dominated American foreign policy and the U.S. Senate even investigated the "merchants of death," who many thought had profited from the wartime sale of American munitions. Today, its the World War II "greatest generation" that gets the attention, but it was the war Frank Buckles and his generation fought that really defined the 20th Century. The war now mostly relegated to the dusty back shelf of American history still echoes down to us today in so many ways. The modern map of Europe and the Middle East is the result of that war. We now have a modern democracy and a NATO ally in Turkey. The Ottoman Empire ended with the war. The last Russian Tsar was ushered out and Lenin and eventually Stalin ushered in as a result of that war. The war brought an end to emperors in Germany and Austria-Hungary and made France and Britain fearful of the rise of the Bolsheviks, but even more fearful of another European war. An Austrian corporal injured in a gas attack in that war, used the defeat of Germany and its allies as a springboard to create what became the horrors of Nazism. Winston Churchill knew both glory and defeat in the great war and at its end helped invent the country where today American soldiers still try to create a democracy. Iraq, born of the great war and always an unnatural nation, has long been a violent and troubled place. Woodrow Wilson, a prickly idealist about many things, thought the world - and his own nation - would study the horrors of the trenches, the gas attacks, the vast machine gun slaughter, and conclude that nations must band together to ensure a lasting peace. By 1920, Wilson couldn't get the U.S. Senate to support his grand ambition of a League of Nations. By 1931, Japan had invade Manchuria, Hitler and his followers where marching in the streets of Bavaria and Mussolini was planning a "new Roman Empire" that would begin with the conquest of Ethiopia. By 1939, barely 20 years after the war to end all wars had sputtered to a uneasy conclusion in muddy fields in France, most of the world was at war again. World War I produced Captain Harry Truman, who served in France, and Lt. Col Dwight Eisenhower, who never got out of the country. George Patton saw action as the first U.S. tank commander in France and Ernest Hemingway and Walt Disney were both ambulance drivers. Hermann Goering learned most of what he needed to know to command the German Luftwaffe as a World War I fighter pilot. It was Frank Buckles's fate to be the last solider of the great war. We should remember him for what he did and remember his war for what it did, too.

The Union Way

2011-03-15T06:15:00.003-06:00

The Great Battle When the shipyard electrician Lech Walesa led the trade union movement in Poland in the 1980's, he and his movement - Solidarity - were the toast of the West. The Polish Pope received him, Ronald Reagan praised him, the Nobel Committee awarded him. Imagine. Such tributes for a union movement and its leader that, not incidentally, brought down a Communist government. When young people took to the streets of Cairo recently, commentators noted that Egypt lacks many of the institutions that contribute to a stable democratic society, including having no tradition of unions to represent workers, advocate for better working conditions and, by definition, create a middle class that works. Ironically, the very conservative National Review - usually no friend of unions in the United States - celebrates the impact of new "freedom" for trade unions in the Arab world. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and that state's GOP majority hav yet to explain why ending collective bargaining rights for public sector workers, particularly teachers, helps improve classroom learning or delivery of public services in the land of the Packers. Same goes for Idaho's leaders who have gone down the same path, ending collective bargaining for educators. All this begs a question: Why do we believe a union movement that helps foster true democracy in eastern Europe or the Middle East somehow cuts against the American way here at home? The answer is pretty simply: politics. You can date the demise of the Democratic Party in Idaho, for example, to the legislature's passage, after years of trying, of right to work legislation in 1986. The Idaho AFL-CIO, never huge in numbers, had nonetheless traditionally been a force in the state's politics helping fuel the rise of successful political careers for guys like Frank Church and Cecil Andrus. Right to work started the decline of labor involvement and effectiveness in the state's politics that continues to this day. While recent polling indicates that most Americans reject the kind of efforts aimed at organized public sector workers in Wisconsin and elsewhere, there is little doubt that organized labor has failed to find a message and articulate an appeal that begins to explain to millions of non-union American workers why unions are important in Warsaw, as well as in Madison and Boise. The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg may have identified one line of argument. He wrote recently: "Organized labor’s catastrophic decline has paralleled—and, to a disputed but indisputably substantial degree, precipitated—an equally dramatic rise in economic inequality. In 1980, the best-off tenth of American families collected about a third of the nation’s income. Now they’re getting close to half. The top one per cent is getting a full fifth, double what it got in 1980. The super-rich—the top one-tenth of the top one per cent, which is to say the top one-thousandth—have been the biggest winners of all.” I'm not sure I understand all the reasons, but it also cannot be denied that while organized labor has lost membership year-by-year since the 1950's, America's basic manufacturing infrastructure has also declined at the same time and at a worrying pace. Sadly, I think, the kind of jobs that once employed blue collar guys who carried a lunch bucket to work are not nearly as important to the American economy as they once, and not that long ago, were. The history of organized labor in America is in the main a story of building a sustainable middle class; jobs for moms and dads with wages that can support a family, pay a mortgage and save a few bucks to send the kids to college. Have there been excesses during the up and down American labor story, of course. Violence was once a routine part of the unavoidable tensions between management and workers. But where unions remain a force today, as in the rehabilitation of Michigan's automobile industry, hard headed negotiations - and big concessions - have replaced the sit down strikes that crippled the auto industry in the 1930's. The challenge to organized labor now, as it faces fresh assaults across the board, is to convince more Americans that banding together and advocating a position with your employer isn't un-American, but actually a vital part of a sustainable democracy. Andy Stern, one of the more forward-looking labor leaders in the country before his retirement, recently gave a fascinating interview to the Washington Post. Here is one line from Stern's interview that pretty well sums up the challenge organize labor faces: "We [organized labor] need an ideology based around working with employers to build skills in our workers, to train them for success. That message and approach can attract different people than the 'we need to stand up for the working class!' approach. That approach is about conflict, and a lot of people don’t want more conflict." True, but Americans do want good, middle class jobs. If a vital, constructive union movement is good enough for democratic Poland or for the democratic aspirations of Egypt, maybe it could work again here.

Healing

2011-03-13T08:00:00.001-06:00

Tucson...Two Months On This city in the Sonoran Desert has been our adopted "second city" now for more than ten years. We have come to love the place, particularly this time of year. The near arrival of spring brings a huge variety of life to the desert. The birds start talking at first light, the cool mornings give way to progressively warmer days until, as the incredible pink sunsets appear in the darkening, brilliant blue sky, the desert night cools again and one of the greatest star shows anywhere helps remind us how insignificant we are in the grand scheme. The third annual Tucson Festival of Books has been dominating the city this weekend, particularly the campus of the University of Arizona. Thousands flocked to the campus yesterday to wander among booths, listen to music and celebrate books with a long list of good writers. I listened to writer Jonathan Eig talk about his latest book on the Chicago mobster Al Capone. As a baseball fan, I've admired and enjoyed Eig's books on Jackie Robinson and Lou Gehrig. He had a big crowd in a big tent laughing yesterday as he disposed of a few myths about Big Al. Capone didn't order the St. Valentine's Day massacre, for instance, and Eliot Ness had almost nothing to do with bringing Capone to justice. More plausibly, Capone got crosswise with a smart U.S. Attorney. Frank DeFord held forth, as did J.A. Jance and Douglas Brinkley. I'm looking forward to seeing a talented historian Annette Gordon-Reed later today and one of my historian heroes, Robert Utley. NPR's Scott Simon moderated a fascinating panel with Luis Alberto Urrea - his book The Devil's Highway is a chilling and exceeding well-crafted account of human trafficking along the U.S. - Mexican border - and T. Jefferson Parker, a novelist who writes about the drugs, money and guns that increasingly define our relationship with Mexico. Simon seemed momentarily taken aback when a questioneer thanked him for his sensitive and knowing reporting in the aftermath of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and so many others on January 8. The big crowd in the UA Student Union applauded the remark and the conversation returned to the nature of the misunderstood story playing out daily in the borderlands. Still, a little over two months on from the shootings, the healing here comes slowly and one gets the impression that a whole city is still processing, reflecting, mourning and trying to move ahead. Six white crosses still sit on the ground across the street from the Safeway at Ina and Oracle where Gifford was meeting constituents on January 8. There was a big benefit concert this week to raise money to further the healing. A Gifford's aide, Ron Barber, organized a fund for that purpose and a big car dealer and Republican businessman who had supported Gifford's opponent last year made a large donation. The UA has launched an institute devoted to civility and a Gifford's intern-turned-hero, Daniel Hernandez, announced this week that he'll run for student body president at the University. And, of course, the updates on the Congressman's condition dominated the news here and got big play everywhere. Life goes on. The big book festival this weekend made me reflect anew on the power of stories in the hands of gifted storytellers to help us make sense of an often senseless world. Artists simply help us live and cope. Luis Urrea, a great and gifted writer who straddles at least two cultures, gave me a new mantra while he was talking with Scott Simon. Urrea says he tells his writing students that every day is Christmas or their birthday, they just need to be open to the gifts - mostly little tiny gifts - that come their way every day. Tucson is finding its way two months on by finding and enjoying the little gifts that come its way every day.

A Reporter's Reporter

2011-03-10T07:00:00.000-07:00

David Broder, 1929 - 2011 In the last few years it became "inside the beltway" sport for some to denigrate the kind of journalism that Dave Broder practiced for so long from his lofty perch at the Washington Post. To his few critics, Broder, who died on Wednesday at age 81, was old school, a guy interested in the substance of politics, not the cynicism, someone who actually believed that politicians could be motivated by something other than self-interest. Worst of all, to some, Broder was a model of civility; judicious with his judgments, slow to pull the trigger of blame. For my money, he was the gold standard, the dean, the kind of reporter who is rapidly disappearing from the political beat, or any other beat. Broder was to the soles of his well-worn shoes a reporter, not a pontificator. He was criticized by some for repeating the conventional wisdom on D.C., but by any measure of the work that journalist do, he was a calm, reasoned, informed, non-cynical voice that both tried to understand politics and not debase politicians. Dave Broder was a nice guy in what is often a cutthroat business. I met him once and spent a day with him at an Andrus Center conference in Boise a number of years ago. That forum, organized with the Frank Church Institute at Boise State, focused on politics, the press and the law in the post-9-11 world. Well into his 70's, Broder consented to fly across the country and be part of a discussion that I moderated featuring judges, lawyers and journalists. He provided no bombast, just perspective. No harsh criticism of the political process, but rather understanding informed by the belief that most of the time people in public life try, as they see it, to do the right thing. Many of the tributes to Broder, and there will be many over the next few days, will mention his penchant for going door-to-door to talk to real voters about politics. The tributes will stress his sensitivity, even his compassion for the mighty who tumble from great power and his fundamental decency and gentlemanly nature. All true. New Yorker political writer Hendrik Hertzberg admits to criticizing Broder for his repeating of the conventional Washington wisdom, but then recounts a charming story of Broder impressing the devil out of Hertzberg's fawning mother. Not every good reporter is a hit-headed Carl Bernstein. Thank goodness there has been room for a long, long time for a decent and discerning Dave Broder. I connived to sit next to Broder at dinner after a long day at that Andrus Center conference. We'd spent the day discussing and debating how the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon would change American politics, law and the press. I wanted to hear him hold forth on Washington, but he kept gently turning the conversation local. Always the reporter, he wanted to know what was going on in Idaho. Midway through dinner, he pulled out one of those uniquely shaped reporter's notebooks and starting taking notes. I was dumbfounded. Dave Broder, the dean of Washington political reporters, thought I had something worth recording in his notebook. If I hadn't already liked the guy, that would have sealed the deal. But, most importantly, he really did want to know. He was a reporter. Always looking for information, opinions, insight. Writing in the Post yesterday, Robert Kaiser said it well: "In a business dominated by hard-driving egos, Broder was an anomaly: a Midwestern gentleman, gentle in manner, always eager to help fellow reporters and to preserve the reputation of his newspaper. His standards never slipped, save perhaps when yielding to his perennially unfulfilled dreams for his beloved Chicago Cubs." One of the reasons our politics has assumed such a hard and nasty edge relates directly to the hard and nasty approach of too many opinion-driven news organizations and the people who work for them. Dave Broder, even when criticized, refused to succumb to the nasty and cynical. He uplifted his craft and, as a result, uplifted those he covered. I've often thought since that dinner in Boise back in 2003 that Dave Broder would have been welcome on that particular night at any Georgetown salon, Washington embassy or U.S. Senator's dinner table. He chose to come to Boise. He wanted to know what was happening out here. He was curious and interested. He was a real reporter. At that Andrus Center conference Broder was asked what responsibility the press has to protect secrets that might impact national security. It was the time when then CIA officer Valerie Plame had been publicly identified and her cover blown thanks to political leaks and press reports. Broder warned the questioner that he was going to get a longer answer than he might want and then proceed to say, with nuance and insight, that it is the government's responsibility to protect its secrets. The press has another job. The job of the press is to report what is going on, he said, what is important. The government tries to protect secrets, the press reports news. Old school, indeed. If you don't believe Dave Broder was one-of-a-kind, try to think of anyone in journalism today who can now inherit his unique role. He was the dean, maybe the last of a breed. I'm not sure he ever revisited those notes he took when we were talking during dinner, but he did write it down. I'll remember that - and Dave Broder - for a long, long time. Good guy, terrific journalist.

Failing at Politics and Policy

2011-03-09T09:00:00.003-07:00

Expelled from Politics On Tuesday, the Idaho House approved the most political piece of State Superintendent Tom Luna's "education reform" effort and sent it on to receive a sure signature from Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter. Idahoans who care about schools - and politics - may look back on the vote to strip collective bargaining rights from the state's teachers and make tenure more tenuous for new teachers as a true watershed moment. Like the great Jack Dempsey, knocked out of the ring in a 1923 title fight, the Idaho Education Association's once-powerful role in the state's politics has been knocked for a loop, perhaps never to recover. Dempsey somehow pulled himself back in the ring against Luis Firpo and eventually won his famous fight. The IEA has rarely demonstrated that kind of agility. It seems unfair to kick someone when they're down, but the reality in these events is obvious, just as the politics is raw. The IEA has failed at both politics and policy and when the legislative moment of reckoning arrived in 2011, the state's teachers were vilified, marginalized and defeated badly. This has been a long time coming. Over the last 15 years, as Idaho's politics has shifted dramatically, the IEA has clung to an old and outdated strategy. Rather than try to elect allies to the legislature or cultivate those already there, the teachers have seemed to focus, without success, on top of the ticket races like governor and state superintendent. The folly of the approach was well documented in a good piece of reporting recently by the Idaho Statesman's Dan Popkey. Popkey got the quote of the current legislative session out of former Democratic State Sen. Brandon Durst who complained about IEA's focus on thwarting Luna's re-election bid rather than winning a handful of potentially decisive legislative elections, his included. “They’re my friends, so let me characterize it a little bit more diplomatically," Durst told Popkey. "They blew it. Their decision to put all of their resources, not just financial but also human resources, behind [Luna's] campaign and his campaign alone, really hurt races down the ticket.” But this failure of political strategy goes deeper than misfiring in one election cycle. The IEA has something like 13,000 members in every corner of Idaho. That represents a grassroots organization that most interest groups would kill for, yet the teachers seem not to have been able to really mobilize these local foot soldiers and use them to build broader coalitions. This represent a failure of strategy that ignores a fundamental tenet of politics at every level: organize, organize, organize. At the same time, Idaho's teachers have become a punchline and a punching bag for what's wrong with education. Teachers have become the Idaho equivalent of the old story that everyone hates the U.S. Congress, but most of us still like our own Congressman. Most Idahoans like the teacher who helps educate their kids, they have just come to hate the teachers union. At the risk of blaming the victim, IEA must shoulder a good deal of the blame for letting this damaging perception take root. The teachers, sorry to say, didn't fight back effectively against the ceaseless drumbeat that they are a major part of the problem with education. Which bring us to policy. Whether its fair or not, perception is reality in politics and the perception hangs that teachers have not engaged constructively in the raging debate over why our education system fails to meet almost everyone's expectations. Playing defense all the time is not a political strategy and it has become for the teachers a recipe to become politically marginalized. Successful movements - and interest groups - eventually need to stand for something, educate folks about the wisdom of the position and build broad support. I'm guess that even most of their supporters in the Idaho Legislature really don't understand the IEA's policy agenda, assuming there is one. IEA's leadership justifiably complains about not being at the table when Luna's reform agenda was hatched, but the teachers also had a chance to build their own policy table and haven't. Unfortunately, this is not just an Idaho-based failure, but a broader national failing of professional teacher organizations. Look no farther than Wisconsin or Ohio for proof. At the IEA website, there is a link called "Why Politics?" A click at the link takes you to a short page that explains that the organization is involved in politics because decisions in Idaho and Washington, D.C. effect teachers. Then there is this sentence: "Time and again, over the last century (emphasis added) IEA members have won major victories to both defend and set new standards for public education in Idaho." It's hard to remember in this century when Idaho teachers won a major or even minor victory. It may be a long time - if ever - before that happens again. If it ever happens again, it will be because Idaho's worn down and increasingly hard pressed teachers, and the organization that represents them, adopts a real political strategy that can help them climb back into the ring.

The Great Game

2011-03-07T06:30:00.001-07:00

Memories of Baseball More than any other of the games that command the attention of the dedicated sports fan, baseball is a game of memory. Memories of dads playing catch with kids, the mental image of walking up a ball park ramp for the first or the hundredth time and taking in the sight and smell of the green field, the endless records that record the history and detail of thousands of contests - all are a part of the individual recollections of so many hours spent in the magical spell of the great game. No matter how long you play, watch, read about or reflect on baseball, you will never have it mastered. You can never exhaust the infinite prospect that you will find and enjoy something fresh and new. Today, I know, I'll find something fresh and new in the oldest and maybe the sweetest ballpark currently in use in the Cactus League, Phoenix Municipal Stadium. The home Oakland A's entertain the boys of spring from Seattle this afternoon and for me it will be the unofficial start of another sweet season of memory. You can't go to a ballpark without remembering. In a way, it may be the best part of baseball. My baseball mentor, my dad, established this spring-time ritual of baseball memory. About this time every year he would start to recall: Mickey Cochrane, his favorite, the great A's and Tigers catcher; Connie Mack, the manager who wore a suit and tie in the dugout; Jimmie Foxx and Lefty Grove, Dizzy and Daffy, and Mickey Owen's tragically dropped third strike. Memories. Growing up in western Nebraska, I'm sure my dad never set foot in the old ballpark in Brooklyn, but it came home to him nevertheless in a hundred scratchy and distant radio broadcasts. He didn't have to physically be there to know the place and I know the feeling. I never saw the great Duke Snider play - he died a few days ago at 84 - but after reading the memories of his Dodger teammate, pitcher Ralph Branca, I can almost see him roaming center field in old and long gone Ebbets Field in Brooklyn. Branca's memories are the memories of a baseball fan. As a general rule this Giants fan doesn't waste much baseball admiration on a Dodger, but I make an exception for that old Brooklyn bunch - Campanella, Reese, Erskine, Hodges, Robinson and, of course, the Duke of Flatbush. They were something special. They live in our baseball memories. Branca offered a warm and wonderful tribute to his old teammate over the weekend and it was all about memory. "I still see Duke as a young man," Branca wrote in the New York Times, "I see him out there in center field, racing past the ads for Van Heusen shirts and Gem razors, while executing a brilliant running catch. I see him at the plate, crushing Robin Roberts’s fastball and sending it soaring high over that crazy right-field wall at Ebbets Field. I see him rounding the bases. I see him smiling. I feel the joy of his sweet, happy soul." There may be no crying in baseball, but there is poetry in the memories. Great humor, too. Greg Goossen, who also died recently, inspired a great deal of humor during his lackluster and memorable baseball career. In his too-short but very full life, the one-time catcher also promoted big-time boxing, did a stint as a private detective and served as Gene Hackman's movie stand-in. Goossen, in what must be close to a record, if not a guaranteed laugh line, played for 37 different teams in the minor, Mexican and Major Leagues. Goossen remarkably lead the team in hitting during the one season of the short-lived Seattle Pilots and told an interviewer he would have played his whole career in Seattle. Teammate Tommy Davis, himself well-traveled, piped up with, "You did!" Goossen figured prominently in Jim Bouton's baseball classic Ball Four where Bouton recounted that he and Goossen once played against each other in an International League game. Goossen was behind the plate when a hitter rolled a bunt back toward the pitcher. "First base, first base," Goossen yelled. Ignoring those instructions the pitcher wheeled and threw to second with all runners safe. Goossen, ticked that his simple directions had been ignored, moved back behind the plate while Bouton yelled from the opposing team dugout, "Goose, he had to consider the source." The Duke and the Goose, Branca and Bouton and all the rest will be there at Phoenix Muni today. That's the way this game is played with balls and strikes, hits and ground outs...and memories. It'll be great.

The Great Race

2011-03-05T10:00:00.002-07:00

Grand Old Pretenders George Will has finally written what many Republicans are thinking: these folks aren't ready for prime time. In his Sunday column, Will laments the "vibrations of weirdness" emanating from the prospective GOP presidential field. Exhibit A this week is Mike Huckabee, often seen as the GOP front runner in what blogger Taegan Goddard calls "the Fox News primary." The wise New York Times columnist Tim Egan, still a hard-nosed, fact-based reporter at heart, lays bare Huckabee's "misspeak" this week about Barack Obama's growing up in Kenya. Of course, Huckabee got that all wrong. Obama grew up in Hawaii (still one of the 50 states), spent some time in Indonesia and didn't visit Kenya until he was in his 20's. But, as Egan points out, Huckabee not only misspoke, he had a whole line of factless argument built around Obama the Kenyan. This wasn't a slip of the tongue, but a premeditated argument aimed at driving the wedge over whether Obama is really one of us. Even more damaging to Huckabee is Egan's reporting on the fictions around a the case of a parolee that Huckabee never really had to explain during his short run for the GOP nomination in 2008. Read Egan's reporting and see if this guy really has a chance. Here's a bet that Huckabee opts to stay on Fox as a talk show host rather than troop around in the snow in Iowa and New Hampshire. Egan's piece will haunt him either way. George Will, meanwhile, does not count The Huck in the five candidates - Mitt Romney, Jon Huntsman, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels - that he sees as the great hope of the GOP. But, as he writes, "the nominee may emerge much diminished by involvement in a process cluttered with careless, delusional, egomaniacal, spotlight-chasing candidates to whom the sensible American majority would never entrust a lemonade stand, much less nuclear weapons." Exhibit B: Another piece this week, also in the Post, detailing the relationship - if that is the right word for it - between Huntsman and Romney. Reporter Jason Horowitz's fascinating piece about the two ambitious LDS politicians says: "The respective former governors of Utah and Massachusetts have vast fortunes, silver tongues and great hair. They are also distant cousins, descended from a Mormon apostle who played a key role in the faith's founding. The two men enjoyed the early support of powerful and devout fathers and performed the church's missionary work - Romney in France during the Vietnam War and Huntsman in Taiwan." Horowitz goes on to make the case that both Huntsman and Romney wanted to run the Salt Lake City Olympics, knowing that the high profile post would help their political aspirations. When Romney won out, the two men's personal and family connection was badly frayed. Horowitz also gets into the issue of which of the men is the "better Mormon." Neither the Huckabee story line this week nor the Romney-Huntsman feud can possibly be the narrative Republican strategists are hoping to develop. At this point, in the desperate race for money and attention, this kind of story line doesn't help build momentum, but does raise questions that will linger and linger, first among the chattering classes and eventually among the voters. Former Idaho Gov. Cecil Andrus - he won his share of elections - has a favorite saying: "you can't win a horse race with a dog." Admittedly, it's early, very early, in the all-too-long political nominating process. The economy and Middle East oil prices may yet be a greater threat to Obama than anyone in the Republican field but, having said that, none of these contenders is reminding anyone of Ronald Reagan, or even Howard Baker, Bob Dole or John McCain. The weirdness is vibrating and no one is running the lemonade stand.

A New Game

2011-03-03T10:00:00.001-07:00

Party Registration Comes to Idaho Idaho's most conservative Republicans got what they long wanted yesterday with the decision by U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill throwing out the state's open primary law. We'll see if this important decision becomes the political equivalent of the dog catching the car. It would seem that the immediate impact, as some Republicans exalted over "Democrats no longer picking our candidates," would be to shift the already very conservative Idaho GOP even further to the right. The after thought Idaho Democrats are left to lament shutting people out of the system. Maybe. But, if Democrats were to pick themselves up off the canvas and seize Winmill's ruling as the opportunity it could prove to be, it just might turn out to be the spark that lets the long-suffering party get back in the game. In politics you can often define opportunity as the moment circumstances collide with timing. The circumstances are the issues mix in Idaho right now - faltering funding for education and a still limping economy - the timing is reflected by the stark reality that Idaho Democrats need a new organizing principle and new blood; energy and ideas to jump start a political recovery. Scrambling the primary process, requiring party registration could be a very big deal. The current Idaho legislature will end sometime this spring likely having left many, if not most, Idahoans wondering just what happened to education. Expect more Statehouse demonstrations and perhaps even a teacher walkout in coming days focused on defining the education issue to the detriment of the majority party. If Democrats were smart they'd be in the streets collecting names and e-mail addresses of these motivated, mostly younger Idahoans. (One wag noted the irony in proposing that Idaho students become more comfortable with on-line course offerings, while the kids are organizing on Facebook.) The recent Boise State University poll says 37 percent of Idahoans now identify themselves as "independents," only 21 admit to being Democrats, while 33 say they align with the GOP. In the BSU surveys, the numbers of self-described Republicans has been in steady decline. By the same token, in a new closed primary those "independents" are, at least theoretically, up for grabs and for the first time in 2012 primary voters will have to be identified by a party label. The Republicans in Idaho have long had the money, organization and hearts and minds of, at least, a plurality of Idaho voters. But this is also true: the most faithful adherents in each party are the "true believers" of the increasingly farther right and left. These folks volunteer at the precinct level, they attend the party conventions, they vote in primaries and, at least in the GOP, some of them pushed for a closed primary. The true believers also tend to push the parties to the extremes, which is why you see GOP proposals to nullify health care legislation and repeal the 17th amendment to the Constitution. Most Idaho Republican officeholders no longer fear a challenge from a Democrat. They only worry about an assault from the right. This unrelenting ever more conservative push tends to diminish the already shrinking center were more Idahoans, if you believe the BSU poll, say they are more at home. Democrats should look deeply into the impact of Judge Winmill's decision. It just might contain the fragile threads of a return to viability. Viability will, however, require a new strategy, true centrist policies, messages and candidates and a very big dose of luck. Democrats, of course, need to supply most of that. Ironically, a federal judge may have given the Idaho GOP the thing it says it wants, but also the lucky break Idaho Democrats need.

More McClure

2011-03-01T12:26:00.010-07:00

Man Bites Dog Lots of reaction and remembering, very appropriately, to the weekend passing of one of Idaho's political icons Sen. Jim McClure. Most of the reaction, again appropriately, has described McClure's time in the U.S. House and Senate as distinguished, thoughtful and productive. Others have noted that he was a work horse, not a show horse; a decent guy in a business that has become more and more characterized by nastiness and blind partisanship. One of the best and most thoughtful reactions to McClure's death and his career comes in a great piece by long-time Idaho Conservation League Executive Director Rick Johnson. Johnson has taken the point in the Idaho environmental community in stressing a new approach to engagement and even collaboration with some of the traditional "enemies" of the conservation community. He writes of not initially thinking much of McClure, but over time coming to realize that the conservative Republican was a fellow you could talk with and maybe even make a deal with. "I now see," Johnson writes, "how much wilderness we didn't get back then working with him and later in the under-appreciated collaboration he had with then-Gov. Cecil Andrus. Those bills were far from perfect. But bills today are also far from perfect, and today's are more limited in scale. Nothing's perfect you say? I didn't know that then. Incidentally, my older mentors didn't know that, either." It is almost a "man bites dog" moment and strong kudos to Johnson for recognizing and admitting that a guy who is a card carrying environmentalist - I say that with affection - could learn a thing or two from a senator who was often caricatured as an apologist for extractive industries. That is the beauty of politics - things are rarely as black and white, cut and dried as some try to make them. Progress is in the gray area of compromise and consensus. One aspect of McClure's career deserves special recognition as Idahoans reflect on his importance to the state's politics. The guy was a legislator. He didn't see his job as making bombastic speeches, although like any good and effective politician he could do that, he went to Washington, D.C. to get things done. Over a career that included strong advocacy for timber, mining and the Department of Energy, he also offered up conservation oriented legislation that, as my friend Rick Johnson argues, many of us would be glad to have on the books today. That alone is why Jim McClure and others of his ilk will be long remembered. They used public office to try and do things. His approach is always going to be a good model - at any time in any state.

One of the Greats

2011-02-28T07:30:00.002-07:00

James Albertus McClure, 1924-2011 History will record that Sen. Jim McClure, who died Saturday at the age of 86, was one of the most significant politicians in Idaho's history. A staunch Republican conservative, McClure nonetheless was liked and respected by those across the political spectrum, but beyond that he accumulated a record of accomplishment that has lasting impact. A strong advocate for the natural resources industries so important to Idaho, McClure also saw the need to resolve long-standing debates over wilderness designation in his native state. He worked out the boundary lines of the Hells Canyon National Recreation Area by spreading maps on the floor of the governor's office and getting on his hands and knees with Democrat Cecil D. Andrus. He helped champion creation of the Sawtooth NRA and in the last days of Frank Church's life he got the iconic River of No Return Wilderness renamed for the Democrat. He fought tooth and nail to grow the Idaho National Laboratory and distinguished himself as a member of the Iran-Contra Committee investigating that scandal. As a reporter and in other capacities, I have had the chance to interview Jim McClure probably more than 20 times over the years. I never sat down with any person who was better prepared or who provided a better interview. He was candid, opinionated and always impeccable well informed. I also never saw the guy use a note card or a script. He was a marvelous extemporaneous speaker. He was also a complete gentleman. Once in Sun Valley years ago, while McClure was chairing the Senate Energy Committee, he sat for a taped interview for well more than half an hour. At the end of the session, while we were making small talk, the technical crew whispered in my ear that none of the half hour of Q and A had been recorded on tape. Gulp. I'd just wasted the time of a busy, important U.S. Senator and had absolutely nothing to show for it. Not missing a beat, McClure smiled and said, "Let's do it again." And we did. He didn't have to do that. Most would have said, sorry, but I've got to run. Obviously, I have never forgotten the kindness. One thing I'll never forget about McClure was his principled pragmatism. Never anything less than a loyal and conservative Republican, he also knew that progress often requires compromise and finding a middle ground. Such was the case when McClure again hooked up with Andrus in 1987 and spent weeks working out a comprehensive approach to the decades-long battles over Idaho wilderness. They flew around the state, spread out the maps and offended everyone - particularly their respective "base" voters. There was something in the grand compromise that everyone could hate and the McClure-Andrus approach ultimately failed. I've thought many times since that the two old pols knew they were far out in front of their constituents, but were nevertheless willing to risk political capital to try to resolve a controversy. It's easy in politics to say "no." It is much more difficult - and risky - to try to lead. McClure was a leader. I was pleased to have a hand in creating a University of Idaho video tribute to Jim McClure in 2007. You can check it out at the University's McClure Center website. In the Idaho political pantheon, McClure stands with Borah and Church as a among the greatest and most important federal officials Idaho has ever produced. He was a genuinely nice guy, too.

Symbolic Cuts

2011-02-27T07:00:00.002-07:00

Minimal Money, Real Impact Noted documentary filmmaker Ken Burns has waded into the fray over eliminating federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and sharply reducing the measly dollars we spend on the national endowments for the humanities and the arts. In a piece in the Washington Post, Burns - his Civil War documentary may be the best long-form television ever - asks us to remember that during the Great Depression somehow the country found the dollars to support artists, writers and photographers who produced some of the most enduring work of the 20th Century. Surely, he says, we can afford a fraction of a cent of our federal tax dollar for CPB and the endowments. In the interest of full disclosure, loyal readers need to know I have a strong bias here. I cut my journalism teeth years ago with a daily half-hour broadcast on public television. I have volunteered for 15 years on various boards dedicated to the mission of the public humanities and the bringing of thoughtful programs on American and world culture, history, literature, religion and philosophy to Idahoans and Americans. I'm a true believer in these well established and minimally funded institutions and I also understand the federal budget. The $420 million we spend on CPB, almost all of which goes to local public TV and radio stations and programs like those Ken Burns makes, and the $168 million we spend on each of the endowments is a total drop in the federal budget bucket. The Pentagon spends that much in an afternoon. Case in point, Boeing just got an award from the Defense Department to build a new generation of aerial tankers - price tag $35 billion. Assuming Boeing builds a full fleet of 179 tankers, that averages out to about $195 million per plane. That buys a whole lot of what the endowments and CPB provide Americans. I know, I know, we need new aerial tankers to replace those in service since Eisenhower was in the White House, but don't we also need a place - for a tiny fraction of the cost - where Ken Burns' documentaries reach a huge audience or where the humanities endowment supports a local museum or library? Congress and the president continue the gandy dance around the real need to address the federal budget deficit. We have a crisis in three areas - defense spending, Medicare and Social Security. We need to address a combination of very difficult tradeoffs. Extend the retirement age, means test Medicare, reduce the size and scope of our military power on every continent and raise taxes. It's easier to say than to cut, but there you have the real issues. Anyone who tells you we can address the dismal federal deficit by cutting CPB and the National Endowments is practicing demagoguery on the scope of Huey Long, the subject, by the way, of a Ken Burns' documentary. Much of this debate, it must be noted, is about ideology rather than real budget savings. Some conservatives assail public broadcasting or the pointy headed humanities and arts community as the preserve of "liberals." Nonsense. William F. Buckley found a home on PBS. Were the great man alive today, do you think he could find a place on Fox or CNN? Not a chance. Listen to a week of The NewsHour or Morning Edition and really consider the range of views, opinion and ideology you hear. Public TV and radio have become one of the few real clearinghouses of ideas about the American condition. Not liberal, not conservative, but truly fair and balanced. America is a country of ideas. We have thrived for as long as we have because we value the big debate, the chance for lots of voices - from Ken Burns to the Red Green Show (on PBS) to the Trailing of the Sheep Festival and a summer teacher institute in Idaho (funded by the Idaho Humanities Council) - to be heard, considered, rejected and embraced. We must get serious about the federal deficit. We must also recognize that a guy as talented as Ken Burns would never have a chance in the "marketplace media." A long-form documentary on baseball, jazz, the National Parks or World War II simply won't find a place in modern commercial broadcasting. So, eliminating that platform is really a decision to eliminate the ideas represented there. If we lose what a Ken Burns represents, we lose a connection with our history and our culture that simply can't be replaced. We will regret it, but not as much as our children.

Myths and More

2011-02-23T06:00:00.003-07:00

Somethings Just Ain't So How many times have you heard someone say - usually a politician - "Americans have the best health care in the world." Or this one - no one goes hungry in America. Or, America is the world leader in - fill in the blank. Truth be told, we aren't leading the world in much these days. Our health care is the most expensive in the world, but by almost any measure no where close to the best. And, according to a recent USDA report, fully 15 percent of Americans are now food "insecure," literally unsure where the next meal is coming from. One of the great challenges to American democracy, made particularly acute by the vast expansion of "information" available to all of us every minute of every day, is the challenge of separating what we think we know from what is really, verifiably true. Some of the myths, 51 percent of likely Republican primary voters don't believe Barack Obama was born in the United States, for example, serve to warp political judgments and reinforce a constant theme of some of his opponents that Obama is "not like us." It is a myth that serves some political ends. Other myths, like the oft repeated notion that the NFL Super Bowl is the most watched sporting event in the world, just play to the old notion that if it happens here it must be the biggest, the best, the most important. Actually, the World Cup soccer championship, thanks to a truly world-wide audience, gets more viewers than the Packers beating the Steelers. Some of the so called "mainstream media" are trying to debunk some of the myths out there. The Washington Post runs a regular feature - "Five Myths" - that puts the facts back into common myths. Its good stuff. A recent piece by Lincoln scholar Harold Holzer challenged the myth that the 16th president was "just a country lawyer." He wasn't. Holzer writes: "...in the 1850s [Lincoln] ably (and profitably) represented the Illinois Central Railroad and the Rock Island Bridge Co. - the company that built the first railroad bridge over the Mississippi River - and earned a solid reputation as one of his home state's top appeals lawyers." New York Times graphic columnist Charles Blow is another of the mythbusters. His recent piece compared the United States to more than 30 other countries on the basis of the International Monetary Fund assessment of the conditions that contribute to an "advanced economy." We don't fare very well. Our income inequality has us compared - is unfavorably the word - to Hong Kong. We're doing better on unemployment than Greece or Spain, but no where near as well as Switzerland, Denmark or even Canada. With regard to life expectancy, we're not nearly as good as France, but about as good as Cyprus. Cyprus? We have the largest number of people incarcerated per 100,000 citizens of any place in the world. More than 700 per 100,000 in jail here. It's about 50 per 100,000 in Iceland. Little wonder our corrections costs are running wild. Student math achievement is - big surprise - way behind Japan, Korea and Singapore. And, food security. No one goes hungry in Belgium or Austria. We're the worst of the worst in the "advanced economy" class when it comes to food security. There is an old saying in politics that holds that you will know that a candidate for public office is in trouble when he or she starts believing their own press releases. In other words, the spin of what we'd like to be able to accomplish overtakes the reality of what we are really living. We start living myths, substituting our opinions for facts. Amid all the talk about "American exceptionalism" we struggle to separate the myths of our standing in the world from the reality of our challenges. All the while, the rest of the world is catching up, or already leading us and, in many cases, moving on. Mark Twain said, I think, “It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.”

President's Day

2011-02-21T10:00:00.001-07:00

Great Readers James Buchanan was the 15th President of the United States and by nearly universal assessment the worst we've ever had. He dithered while the Union came apart, helped precipitate Bleeding Kansas and did nothing to help Lincoln during the succession crisis in the last days of his administration. Mark Buchanan as a near complete failure...except as it turns out the guy was a great reader. The Daily Beast website has a fun series of short profiles of the presidents who were most in love with books. You would guess, of course, Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and the two Roosevelts, but Buchanan or Rutherford B. Hayes? Hayes amassed a personal library of 12,000 volumes and Herbert Hoover, a very smart man and not a very effective president, had a library of rare books on obscure science subjects and many were in Latin.

The same website has a Presidential Trivia Quiz today.

Who was the first president to fly in an airplane? Hard to believe, but true, only one president is buried in Washington, D.C. and, believe it or not, Jimmy Carter was the first president born in a hospital.

So...on President's Day, a toast - a rare toast - to James Buchanan, a bad president, but a book lover. With that knowledge, he can be modestly redeemed in my eyes.

Effective and Not

2011-02-20T10:00:00.000-07:00

Nullification or Common Sense They celebrated Jefferson Davis's inauguration yesterday in Montgomery, Alabama. Actually, it was a day late. One hundred fifty years ago Friday, Davis became the President of the Confederacy. As the Los Angeles Times noted, it was a much bigger celebration in 1961 on the centennial of the event that presaged the Civil War. Several southern governors showed up then, none did this weekend. The crowds were smaller and more people were in the ceremony than in the audience. As LA Times blogger Andy Malcolm points out, Davis - this is history, not state's rights mythology - is a curious hero for modern day southerners. He actually opposed succession, but not the "right" of a state to do so, and his wife openly opposed the war. The prickly former Mississippi Senator had a stormy tenure. He tried to micromanage the operations of southern armies in the field, advanced his favorite generals over more accomplished men and developed an uncanny ability to feud with southern governors. Still, he was the only president the south had. You go to celebration with the president you have. Apropos of the political moment in several states - Montana now seeks to nullify health care and the Endangerd Species Act - even Davis opposed nullification, arguing that just leaving the Union was a more practical and effective approach. That didn't work all that well, either. As the Idaho State Senate prepares to ignore the sound and fury of "nullification" of federal health care legislation that came over recently from the state's righters in the Idaho House, it may be worth a moment to consider how a state that depends so heavily on federal largess - INL, Mountain Home AFB, the Forest Service, irrigation projects - can wage an effective battle against the big, bad federal government. Former Idaho Gov. Cecil D. Andrus has a piece in the Twin Falls Times-News that makes the case for the quiet, but effective approach of applying common sense to our not infrequent battles with Washington, D.C. In short, fix problems by using the courts and the legislative arena, not by passing time wasting bills that garner big headlines, but don't fix problems. That approach is more difficult, to be sure, but it can work and have lasting results. All that lasts from the nullifiers of 150 years ago is the memory of a lost cause, the consequences of which we still struggle to put in context and understand. The real question may be, have we learned anything from that disasterous piece of American history?

Bashing Teachers

2011-02-17T11:00:00.000-07:00

Teachers as Targets Like most everyone, I suspect, I had a favorite teacher growing up. (Actually, I had a hopeless crush on my high school chemistry teacher, but that is another story and probably goes some distance to explain my very weak performance in her class.) My favorite was Mr. Parr, a history and social studies teacher and the 8th grade basketball coach. It's not an overstatement to say that John Thomas Parr changed my life. I was a pimply faced, shy, decidely underachieving, near teenager when I walked into his class. I was interested in history. He made me love it. I wanted to play basketball. He made me want to play for him. I lacked confidence. He gave it to me. I'll never forget making both ends of a one-and-one free throw opportunity in a game in Evanston, Wyoming. With 30 seconds left in the game, I couldn't even think of missing. I didn't want to disappoint Mr. Parr. I used to marvel at the way he used humor, a set of firm but fairly applied rules and his moral authority to handle anything that came up in class or during practice after school. Kids not only liked the guy, they wanted to do well - and do good - for him. He reflected his talents and personality back on us. What a great teacher he was. I've been thinking about Mr. Parr - he'll always be Mr. Parr to me - as I've read stories from Idaho to Wisconsin betraying an increasingly nasty undercurrent in the on-going debate over education budgets or, in the Idaho and Wisconsin cases, education "reform." Teachers as a class are getting hammered. Its both a shame and a major public policy mistake. In Wisconsin, new Gov. Scott Walker has proposed eliminating many teacher collective bargaining rights and in response thousands of teachers have descended on the state capitol to protest. Meanwhile Democratic legislators have walked out in their own protest. In Idaho, parts of the reform proposal focus on changing the way school districts handle contracts with teachers. I've yet to see a story that links improving classroom performance to changing contracts. In both states teachers complain about being left out of the "reform" discussions. Meanwhile, Education Secretary Arne Duncan seems to offer a more complicated, but perhaps ultimately better approach. At an education summit this week - collaboration, not confrontation was the theme - Duncan asked teacher unions, administrators and school board members "to take on tough issues such as teacher benefits, layoff policies, and the need for more evaluations of administrators and school boards, not just teachers. 'The truth is that educators and management cannot negotiate their way to higher [student] performance. The [labor] contract is just a framework. Working together is the path to success.'" I don't know if Mr. Parr was "ruled by a labor boss" over at the local teacher union. I never thought about what he got paid or the hours he worked. It was pretty obvious the guy loved what he did. Sure there are bad teachers out there. Gosh, I suspect there are even bad investment bankers, misbehaving members of Congress, even retired NFL quarterbacks who haven't quite measured up. There are lots more Mr. Parr's, too. Getting kids better educated and creating the workforce for the 21st Century may just require that we focus on the best teachers and finding ways to make good teachers great. I'd gladly swap all the educational experts for 30 minutes with John Thomas Parr. I'm betting the old teacher and coach would have some ideas. I'm betting he'd begin with the moral authority that goes with common sense.

Still Fighting the War

2011-02-16T09:00:00.001-07:00

That Devil Forrest This just in: Civil War still rages. From nullification battles in Idaho and several other states to a Mississippi proposal to remember Confederate cavalry Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest with a new license plate, the Civil War - it began 150 years ago in April - is still with us. For those who don't understand why the Arabs and Israelis can't get beyond their ancient disputes or scratch their heads over the "troubles" in Ireland, you need only look just below the surface of American politics and culture to appreciate that our old war is new again. We're still fighting over the cause, meaning and memory. In case you're wondering about Forrest - that's him in the uniform of a Lt. General - he rose from private to general officer during the course of the war, is generally regarded as a military genius, albeit a blood thirsty one, and was a founder of the Ku Klux Klan. Forrest notoriously presided over a massacre of black Union troops at Ft. Pillow in 1864. When a Forrest statute was erected in Nashville a while back, the debate began again over whether the man historian Shelby Foote called the one true military genius of that awful war deserved to be commemorated in his home state. Now Forrest is back in the news. Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a possible GOP presidential candidate, says he won't "denounce" supporters of the license plate for the general. The Associated Press quoted the guv as saying, "I don't go around denouncing people. That's not going to happen." Strangely enough Idaho and Mississippi often show up in the same paragraph. The two states, worlds apart in so many ways, often compete for worst of show in educational spending or per capita income. Now, we're competing for throwbacks to 1860. Or, as one wit said recently, Idaho has gone from being West of the Mississippi to being the Mississippi of the West. After all we do have our Secesh Creek and there is a town called Dixie. Perhaps we come by this nullificaiton impulse naturally. As a truly famous Mississippian, William Faulkner, once famously said: "The past is never dead. It's not even past."

Getting Serious

2011-02-14T14:00:00.005-07:00

Defense Cuts = Deficit Control You'll hear a lot of politicians making speeches over the next few days regarding the imperative of getting the federal budget under control. Few will, I predict, be arguing for cutting the massive U.S. defense budget. If they're not talking about defense they're just not serious. In inflation adjusted terms, we're spending more money on the Pentagon than we did during the Vietnam War. We're spending more than we spent in the first year of World War II. No kidding. Talk about something that is not sustainable, yet it is hardly seriously debated in Washington, Boise or Butte. Give credit to Defense Secretary Robert Gates for starting the conversation about the need to reduce military spending, but then give yourself a reality check. The Gates budget for next year, released today by President Obama, is $553 billion. The cranky old Republican who co-chaired Obama's deficit reduction commission, former Sen. Alan Simpson, calls Gates' effort to reduce - "crappy little cuts." Further reality check - that $533 billion figure does not include what will likely be another $118 billion for actually fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As McClatchy reported, the Pentagon budget for next year will "mark the 14th year in a row that Pentagon spending has increased, despite the disappearing presence in Iraq. In dollar terms, Pentagon spending has more than doubled in 10 years. Even adjusted for inflation, the Defense Department budget has risen 65 percent over the past decade." Lawrence Korb, a senior Defense Department official in the Reagan Administration, argues that the first place to start to trim the Pentagon budget is "reducing or eliminating funding for a number of unnecessary weapons programs, such as V-22 Osprey, rolling back the post-Sept. 11 growth in the ground forces and reducing the number of American forces deployed abroad outside of Iraq and Afghanistan." The U.S. maintains more than 800 military installations around the world in 46 counties. That contributes just a few bucks to the deficit we all worry about. The American Empire is costly to maintain. Fact in, in the budget language of the day, it is not sustainable. Devotees of Ronald Reagan give him credit for bring the Soviet Union to its knees, in part because the old Communist state just couldn't keep spending vast amounts on its military in an effort to keep up with us. Here an example of part of the problem. Virtually every Congressional district in the country has a financial stake - jobs, bases, contractors - who live or die by the defense budget. Hence this story from the Columbus, Ohio Dispatch - "Central Ohio dodging a bullet on defense cuts." The paper says with reference to a proposed new Marine amphibious vehicle set to be manufactured in Ohio: "...lawmakers of both parties are less willing to cut defense spending in their states, fearing that it could lead to a loss of jobs. "'I think it's necessary for our national defense,' Rep. Steve Austria, R-Beavercreek, said of the Marine vehicle. 'A lot of money has been invested in this vehicle.' "'Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said that 'in some sense, it's what makes the Marines the Marines. You don't just cancel this and waste the investment ... that we've already made as taxpayers. This program needs revamping, it needs updating, it needs perhaps a different direction. But we build on this rather than canceling it.''' Translation for both Republicans and Democrats: don't cut the military budget in my state, but gosh this federal spending really is out of control. The vast U.S. military-industrial complex has a vice grip hold on our economy, but in a way that is, there's that word again, unsustainable. We're not competing with Reagan's "evil empire" anymore. Today we are the lone military superpower and have projected our military power around the world much as the British Empire did in the 1800's. As the lone superpower, we certainly spend like a superpower. Hope it doesn't bankrupt us.

Nullification Crisis

2011-02-10T09:00:00.001-07:00

Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing In 1832 when the always frisky state of South Carolina objected to tariff legislation passed by the Congress and signed by President Andrew Jackson, the state's leaders decided they could just ignore the federal act by invoking an "ordinance of nullification." Jackson, not for nothing called "Old Hickory," thought his fellow southerners were nipping a bit heavy into the sour mash, while flaunting the Constitution that he and they were sworn to uphold. The president sent seven U.S. warships to South Carolina waters and Jackson told the state's residents, with a certain decisiveness, that they were flirting with treason. Asked by a visiting South Carolinian if the president had any message for the good people of the Palmetto State, Jackson replied, give them my compliments and tell them if they follow through with these acts of treason, "I'll hang the first man I can lay my hand on." Soon enough South Carolina thought better of this nullification business. Cooler heads will surely prevail, as well, in frisky Idaho - likely in the state senate - after the Idaho House of Representatives has had its fun with a futile, costly and snicker-producing effort to nullify the federal health care legislation. Ignoring the official opinion of the state's Republican chief legal and law enforcement officer, Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, who is already suing the federal government over health care, as well as the considered judgment of one of the nation's top Constitutional scholars, Dr. David Adler, the House State Affairs committee voted 14-5 on Thursday to recommend to the full House that Idaho do what South Carolina wanted to do in 1832. At least two things are missing here: Historical perspective on the 200-plus year history of our federalist system and the kind of principled political leadership that once in a great while requires elected officials to tell the folks who elected them, sorry, you're just wrong and we can't do that. The historical perspective goes back to Jackson and even farther. The principle that any state, acting on its own motion, can chose to defy the duly constructed law of the land has been rejected time and time again in American history. The legislature can hold hearings and object, it can pass a non-binding memorial voicing its displeasure, it can sue, as Idaho has, but it just can't decide to ignore federal law. Not possible unless you subscribe to an anarchist interpretation of more than two centuries of American history. Arkansas in the 1950's tried to defy a federal court order - the law of the land - to desegregate its public schools and Dwight Eisenhower federalized the National Guard to make certain the Constitution was upheld; to avoid anarchy, as Ike said. End of story. States cannot ignore federal law. At some point, genuine political leadership requires serious people to step back from these kinds of emotionally charged efforts and shine some light rather than stoke more heat. Understanding that some folks are mighty upset with the federal health care legislation and that many of them showed up to support the legislature's nullification approach does not abrogate an elected official's responsibility to not always play to the crowd. One of those testifying yesterday in Idaho said, according to the Associated Press account of the hearing, "We as citizens are tired of being lorded over by representatives. We're not conspiracy theorists. We aren't kooks. No one is going to force me to buy anything." It must be hard, in the face of such passion, to not get along by going along. But, once in a while it must be done. In 1946, a very conservative Republican, Sen. Robert A. Taft of Ohio, son of the former president, delivered an historic speech at Kenyon College in his home state. Taft sought out the opportunity to publicly oppose the extremely popular Nazi war crimes trials in Nuremberg that were just then concluding. John F. Kennedy wrote about Taft's political guts in his famous book Profiles in Courage. Here's part of what the Kennedy Library website says about Taft, a man known in his time as Mr. Republican. "To Taft, the [Nazi] defendants were being tried under ex post facto laws (laws that apply retroactively, especially those which criminalize an action that was legal when it was committed). These laws are expressly forbidden in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, section 9 and section 10). Taft viewed the Constitution as the foundation of the American system of justice and felt that discarding its principles in order to punish a defeated enemy out of vengeance was a grave wrong." Hardly anyone in America supported Taft's views. He knew his was speaking directly into a hurricane force wind of opposition, yet he courageously stood for principle over political expediency. "[Taft] was pilloried in the press, by his constituents, by legal experts, and by his fellow Senators on both sides of the aisle. The fallout from the speech may have also played a small part in his unsuccessful presidential bid in 1948. However, Taft so strongly believed in the wisdom of the Constitution that speaking out was more important than his personal ambitions or popularity. Many years later, William O. Douglas of the Supreme Court [a great liberal] agreed with Taft’s view that the Nuremberg Trials were an unconstitutional use of ex post facto laws." Only one Idaho Republican on the House State Affairs Committee, Rep. Eric Anderson of Priest Lake spoke up yesterday and ultimately voted with four Democrats to oppose the nullification proposal. "It's an outright defiance of the law," Anderson said. "If we vacate that rule of law, we simply become nothing but a collection of states that decide among themselves that they're going to nullify everything that's inconvenient to them." There is a higher principle at stake here than making a useless statement about a hated health care law. Courage and political leadership, once in a while, requires an elected official to say: "I hear your concern, I may even agree with your concern, but we can't go this far." The Idaho State Senate will likely have a chance to take that stand and not follow the Idaho House in making a statement of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Unique Among 50

2011-02-10T08:00:00.002-07:00

Nebraska's Unicameral

The great Nebraska Senator George Norris (that's him in the photo) had many ideas during his long years of public service. His ideas and his enduring reputation for decency and integrity mark him as one of the truly great figures in American politics and one of the best ever U.S. Senators.

Among other things, Norris was the "Father of the TVA" - the Tennessee Valley Authority. Unusual for a man from the prairie land of McCook, Nebraska to care about rural economic development in the American south, but Norris was a different kind of senator. He didn't believe auto builder Henry Ford should gain control of the vast hydropower resources in the Tennessee Valley and fought for public development of the resource. Norris Dam, a TVA project, carries his name. Norris also successfully pushed the Rural Electrification Act, instrumental in bringing electricity to much of rural American.

A progressive Republican, Norris was a huge supporter of Franklin Roosevelt. In 1936, he ran as an Independent and FDR famously said: "If I were a citizen of Nebraska, regardless of what party I belonged to, I would not allow George Norris to retire from the U. S. Senate."

One of Norris's most interesting ideas resulted in my home state of Nebraska having the only one house, non-partisan state legislature in the nation. Nebraskans call it simply "the unicameral."

Norris personally conceived of the idea of eliminating one house of the state legislature - he said it was just inefficient and a wasteful duplication to have two houses doing the same thing - and, after he campaigned for the idea statewide working through two sets of tires, Nebraska voters overwhelming approved the unicameral legislature in 1934. The single house has 49 members who are called Senators. The 35-year-old Speaker of the Nebraska legislature was recently profiled in TIME magazine as one of the nation's 40 top leaders under 40 years of age.

The Nebraska system is far from perfect. No political system is. But the next time you read of a huge fight between the House and the Senate in your legislature, and those fights happen in 49 states, you'll not be reading about Nebraska. At least, George Norris took care of that problem.

Colonel Roosevelt

2011-02-09T05:35:00.012-07:00

The Most Famous Man in the World We have become accustom to former presidents writing their memoirs, establishing the presidential library and undertaking a good cause here and there. That's what ex-presidents do. Jimmy Carter has led an exemplary post-presidential life and has, with single-minded determination, come close to eradicating a deadly disease in Africa. Bill Clinton's Foundation has focused on AIDS and third-world development with considerable success. George W. Bush is still settling into the post-White House role and reportedly his recent book has become a best-seller on, of all places, college campuses. As impressive as they have been, none of these recent ex-presidents come anywhere close to matching the life Theodore Roosevelt lived from 1909 to 1919. He packed a near lifetime of activity, scholarship, authorship and politics - including his own and many other campaigns - into the ten years after he left the White House. This amazing Roosevelt history is superbly recounted in Edmund Morris's new biography - The Colonel. The volume is the third in Morris's life of T.R. and it will doubtless stand for a long, long time as the authoritative source on the larger-than-life personality who in his time was called "the most famous man in the world." One things our recent ex-presidents are loath to do is criticize their successors. Clinton and Bush 43 have been particularly careful - we can excuse Clinton's role in stumping for his wife - not to mix their former status with current politics. Teddy had no such reservations. He literally sought every opportunity to bash his own hand-picked successor, William Howard Taft, and the man who wrenched the progressive label from him Woodrow Wilson. Yet even without his deep and prolonged forays into partisan politics post-White House, Roosevelt would have been a world celebrity on the order of, say, Bono or Michael Jackson. The guy was a rock star before we had rock stars. He seemed to know everyone and write about everything. The press of the day covered his African safari, his European tour, complete with marching in the funeral procession of England's Edward VII, his near-death expedition into the Amazon jungle and, of course, his 1912 run for the presidency that included Roosevelt being shot in Milwaukee. Were this life a novel, it simply would not be believable. We have certainly had supremely accomplished presidents since Theodore Roosevelt. Wilson earned a PhD, served as a university president and was a fine writer before the presidency. Herbert Hoover was a world-class engineer who also wrote well. John Kennedy won, with a little help from Ted Sorensen, the Pulitzer Prize. None could touch the breadth and depth of Roosevelt's writing - books, hundreds of magazine pieces, essays, speeches and letters, thousand and thousands of letters. This is a great book about a great man and, a little prediction, Morris will win another Pulitzer for producing what, as the New York Times said, "deserves to stand as the definitive study of its restless, mutable, ever-boyish, erudite and tirelessly energetic subject." In the end, as with much great literature, T.R. story is tragedy. Roosevelt's enless agitating for American involvement in World War I served, in Morris's telling, to glorify the tragic, wasteful, useless war that came to define the 20th Century. The senseless slaughter - only later did Roosevelt come to realize that war is not glory - also cost the life of the youngest Roosevelt, Quentin, who died flying over German lines in 1918. Quentin's father, worn out and dispirited, died the next year. Theodore Roosevelt was only 60; the youngest man to ever serve as president and still and forever one of the greatest.

Dumping Dupnik

2011-02-08T09:00:00.002-07:00

Tea Party Seeks Tucson Sheriff Recall It was probably inevitable given our overheated politics. The Pima County, Arizona sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, has become the target - I use that term advisedly - of a recall effort. The Arizona Daily Star's talented political cartoonist, David Fitzsimmons, sums up this news item up nicely when he has a cartoon recall supporter say, "It's really nice to see the community pulling together at a time like this." A Tucson Tea Party group claims the sheriff's post-Gabrielle Giffords shooting comments "were irresponsible and had no basis in any fact. It's not what law enforcement officers should do when inserting themselves into politics." No mention of the fact that the sheriff has been re-elected repeatedly since 1980 as a Democrat. By any fair definition, this guy is into politics, but we digress. Other supporters of the Dump Dupnik effort have charged with sheriff with being a "leftist," that he intended to protect the "shooter" or that he "hasn't enforced the law." Just the kind of broad, sweeping, factless nonsense that so often passes for political debate in America these days. There is even an Idaho angle to the story. According to the Star, former Idaho Congressman Bill Sali is advising the recall proponents, who are - you might wonder why - being lead by a Salt Lake City talk radio host. For his part the sheriff is hardly backing down from his basic contention that the vitriol of current political discourse has consequences. "I'm sure that this demented person (suspect Jared Lee Loughner) didn't do what he did because of Rush Limbaugh, specifically, or Sarah Palin or ... Glenn Beck. But it's a conglomeration. When people hear this vitriol every day, it has some consequences and I think that's how the tea party got so darned angry so fast." What he does know, the sheriff told the Star, "is that Loughner was angry at government and 'I think in his demented mind, he saw her (Giffords) as representing government.'" The interview with the sheriff, printed on February 6, has of this morning drawn 275 on line comments from Arizona Daily Star readers. You can imagine the tone of most of them and a number were apparently so "uncivil" as to be removed by the newspaper. Two things stand out here. First, recalls aren't about removing people from office simply because you disagree with them or with something they've said. Recalls should be reserved for malfeasance and, as the Constitution says about misbehaving public officials, "high crimes and misdemeanors." You find disagreement with a politician, run or vote against them. Sheriff Dupnik has to face the votes again in 2012. He got just over 64% last time and he says he'll probably run again. Have at it. Beat him at the polls, if you can. Second, the intensity surrounding the Arizona sheriff just proves the point that we struggle right now to find a way to disagree with each other while not being totally disagreeable. We simply must get better at this and everyone has a role and a stake. The Christian Science Monitor, in noting Tucson Mayor Bob Walkup's civility initiative with other U.S. Mayors, printed a short piece called "four ways to kick the polarized partisan habit." It's worth a read and a visit to the Public Conversations Project website is worthwhile, as well. I found one of the four rules particularly appropriate: "Fight for Technicolor - Don't reduce everyone and everything to black and white. Stand up for the multicolored reality of yourself and others." Speaking of Technicolor, the Slate website produced a profile of the controversial sheriff early in January. It's worth reading. Here's a key sentence: "a look through Dupnik's past reveals a much more complex figure than his current portrayal as a liberal Democratic crusader." Really. One thing our media often does, and too many public officials perpetuate, is to reduce every issue and every personality to a "black and white, yes and no" equation. In the real world, things can't be done so simply or so surely. The real world - and real people - operate in Technicolor. Black and white, except for the occasional Humphrey Bogart movie, really should be obsolete.

The Gipper at 100

2011-02-07T10:00:00.001-07:00

Myths are Part of Politics I only had the chance to see Ronald Reagan in the flesh a handful of times. I distinctly remember when he came to Idaho to campaign for then-Rep. Steve Symms in 1980. He had incredible stage presence, a great voice, mannerisms, an almost unprecedented ability to connect with the audience. The Great Communicator. With his 100th birthday this past weekend, the Canonization of Reagan has - perhaps - reached its zenith. Reagan is the one Republican all Republicans can rally to. In his approach to the presidency, he has become - even for Barack Obama - a touchstone, an example of how to use the awesome public powers of the office to move the country, the Congress and the world. It's both good politics and good historical analysis on Obama's part to look to The Gipper for inspiration. In a piece in USA Today, Obama said of Reagan: “At a time when our nation was going through an extremely difficult period, with economic hardship at home and very real threats beyond our borders, it was this positive outlook, this sense of pride, that the American people needed more than anything." There is a theory among presidential historians that it takes 25 years after a president leaves office to begin to come to grips with the man, the accomplishments and the shortcomings. If that is correct, we're about to have the historical distance to look back on the Reagan Era and make some judgments. As much of the Reagan at 100 reporting has pointed out, much about Reagan is - no nice way to put it - a myth. In 1981 he did push through the greatest tax cut in history to that time, but he also raised taxes 11 times during his presidency. Historian Douglas Brinkley, who edited Reagan's diaries, says: "There's a false mythology out there about Reagan as this conservative president who came in and just cut taxes and trimmed federal spending in a dramatic way. It didn't happen that way. It's false." The Tea Partiers who genuflect at his memory conveniently ignore that the federal deficit ballooned on his watch and the federal government grew. Reagan advocated, passionately advocated, the Star Wars missile defense scheme, but also went to the summit with Gorbachev determined to try to eliminate all nuclear weapons. He pulled U.S. troops out of Lebanon after an attack on Marines there and he did trade arms for hostages. In short, the man's record is more complex and ultimately more interesting than the Reagan myths. Myth making in politics is a bipartisan game. Democrats have long clung to their Roosevelt myth, of example. FDR's sunny disposition, great communicator talents and fundamental faith in the American system are the self same attributes most find so endearing about Ronald Reagan. Yet, Roosevelt's sunny personality hid a tough, even mean, streak that played out in his efforts to "purge" the Democratic Party of conservatives in 1938. His reverence for the American system didn't prevent him from trying to "pack" the Supreme Court in 1937. If George W. Bush played fast and loose with the truth in the run-up to the Iraq War, FDR did the same in the run-up to World War II. Had Roosevelt's presidency ended after the 1940 election, with the country deprived of his splendid leadership during the war, we might only remember him today as the man whose policies made too little dent in the side of the Great Depression and who blew up his second term trying to "reform" the Supreme Court. Timing counts for a lot in politics. Like FDR, Reagan created and maintained an uncanny ability to shape the symbols and power of the presidency into an American narrative. They both stood for the America of boundless opportunity; the shining city on a hill. They spoke to the aspirations of Americans, never fully achieved, but important nonetheless. They were, in a word, inspirational leaders. It didn't hurt either man's reputation that their presidencies fell between the tenure of other presidents who never seemed to measure up to the job. Both Reagan and Roosevelt share one other trait, I think, that makes them - myths and all - endure. Both were unlikely leaders, neither really born to the success they achieved. Their success was not inevitable. True enough Roosevelt came from great wealth and enjoyed the benefits of a powerful name, but unlike his distant cousin, who also became a great president, Franklin was, in the famous words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, equipped only with "a second-class intellect, but a first-class temperament." FDR's struggle to overcome polio is a measure of the man's determination and temperament. Reagan rose from Hollywood, B-movie actor to GE pitchman, to Governor of California. As Peggy Noonan, who wrote some of his best lines - lines he practiced and delivered so well - wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "He ran for president four times and lost twice. His 1968 run was a flop—it was too early, as he later admitted, and when it's too early, it never ends well. In 1976 he took on an incumbent Republican president of his own party, and lost primaries in New Hampshire, Florida, Illinois (where he'd been born), Massachusetts and Vermont. It was hand-to-hand combat all the way to the convention, where he lost to Gerald Ford. People said he was finished. He roared back in 1980 only to lose Iowa and scramble back in New Hampshire while reorganizing his campaign and firing his top staff. He won the nomination and faced another incumbent president." Reagan, like FDR, had a great sense of humor; something that will get you a long way in life and in politics. Roosevelt could joke about "my little dog Fala" and tweak his political opponents in the process. Noonan recounts a classic Reagan joke, "a man says sympathetically to his friend, 'I'm so sorry your wife ran away with the gardener.' The guy answers, 'It's OK, I was going to fire him anyway.'" There is at least one, big, practical political lesson in the lives of the two men - Reagan and Roosevelt - who more than any others have shaped American politics for the last 75 years. Optimism, charm, humor, the ability to communicate from the head and the heart, and the gravitas of that hard to define quality "leadership" are all attributes we value in friends and family. Big surprise: we reward those same qualities in our politicians. Much of what we think we know about great figures in our history just isn't so, but still the myths survive, even as the complex truth is much more interesting and ultimately more important.

More Billy Collins

2011-02-06T07:00:00.001-07:00

Another wonderful little poem... My lanyard wearing mom was born on this day in 1922. I miss her every day. The Lanyard by Billy Collins The other day I was ricocheting slowly off the blue walls of this room, moving as if underwater from typewriter to piano, from bookshelf to an envelope lying on the floor, when I found myself in the L section of the dictionary where my eyes fell upon the word lanyard. No cookie nibbled by a French novelist could send one into the past more suddenly— a past where I sat at a workbench at a camp by a deep Adirondack lake learning how to braid long thin plastic strips into a lanyard, a gift for my mother. I had never seen anyone use a lanyard or wear one, if that’s what you did with them, but that did not keep me from crossing strand over strand again and again until I had made a boxy red and white lanyard for my mother. She gave me life and milk from her breasts, and I gave her a lanyard. She nursed me in many a sick room, lifted spoons of medicine to my lips, laid cold face-cloths on my forehead, and then led me out into the airy light and taught me to walk and swim, and I, in turn, presented her with a lanyard. Here are thousands of meals, she said, and here is clothing and a good education. And here is your lanyard, I replied, which I made with a little help from a counselor. Here is a breathing body and a beating heart, strong legs, bones and teeth, and two clear eyes to read the world, she whispered, and here, I said, is the lanyard I made at camp. And here, I wish to say to her now, is a smaller gift—not the worn truth that you can never repay your mother, but the rueful admission that when she took the two-tone lanyard from my hand, I was as sure as a boy could be that this useless, worthless thing I wove out of boredom would be enough to make us even.

Shoulda Known...

2011-02-05T08:00:00.003-07:00

The Mets and Madoff As if you need another reason to dislike the serial Ponzi-schemer Bernie Madoff, now it turns out the swindler was a New York Mets fan. Figures. According to a lawsuit filed against the Mets' owners, the Wilpon boys and Saul Katz, the team and owners allegedly reaped $300 million in fictitious profits from Madoff's various schemes. I guess in Metsland that's at least enough to buy a journeyman left fielder. As the Wall Street Journal reports, "The suit, which also described a more than 25-year relationship between Mr. Madoff and the co-owners of the Mets, said Messrs. Wilpon, Katz and Madoff served on the boards of the same charities, and had season tickets near one another at Mets games. They traveled together with their wives when the Mets played exhibition games in Japan one year, according to the lawsuit, and Mr. Wilpon even helped Mr. Madoff when he was looking for new office space." In August of 1921, then-Baseball Commissioner Keneshaw Mountain Landis banned for life eight Chicago White Sox ballplayers who had been acquitted in a jury trial where they were accused of throwing the 1919 Major League Baseball World Series. Landis, a federal judge as well as the commissioner, issued a terse statement: "Regardless of the verdict of juries, no player who throws a ball game, no player who undertakes or promises to throw a ball game, no player who sits in confidence with a bunch of crooked ballplayers and gamblers, where the ways and means of throwing a game are discussed and does not promptly tell his club about it, will never play professional baseball." Alrighty then. The Mets' owners, as far as we know, didn't undertake to throw games. Why would they, the Mets win so infrequently anyway, but the owners certainly did "sit in confidence" with a bunch of crooks in the person of Bernie Madoff and his crew all the while ignoring warning signs that something wasn't right here. The Mets' best defense, as Buster Olney cracked, may be that "we signed Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo to $60m deals-and WE were supposed to sniff out Ponzi scheme?" Let's call it the stupid rich guy defense. Commissioner Bud Selig, not that he ever would, should move immediately to ban the Met owners. The trial, the attending soap opera, the greed and avarice sure to emerge will, all by itself, be detrimental to the game. Baseball, considering the steroids scandal and the unbelievably slack response to that outrage, could benefit from holding to a higher standard and a higher standard could start with zero tolerance for the owners of a Major League franchise sitting in confidence with one of the greatest crooks in American history.

Stuff Happens

2011-02-04T12:00:00.004-07:00

Exceptionalism, Hubris, Cluelessness The protesters in the streets of Cairo could most likely care less about American domestic political debate. They have bigger issues. Still, while the chaos continues to unfold in the streets of our erstwhile ally, it might be worthwhile for those of us watching to undertake some sober reflection of what the likely fall of Mubarak says about American foreign policy. Two seemingly disconnected data points - the latest silly debate over American "exceptionalism" and former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's new memoir - are informative launching pads for some of the reflection we need. For a few days after President Obama's State of the Union speech, cable's talking heads were popping off about why the president refused to use the word "exceptionalism." Exceptionalism is the notion that American ideals, ambitions, and commitment to liberty are so unique and so special that naturally the United States has not only the moral authority to lead the world, but the moral responsibility to export those ideals, ambitions and commitments. The president did say that America is “the first nation to be founded for the sake of an idea — the idea that each of us deserves the chance to shape our own destiny.” And that “America’s moral example must always shine for all who yearn for freedom and justice and dignity.” Some conservatives, aware that Obama's still greatest political vulnerability is his "differentness," have seized on his allegedly tepid embrace of the exceptionalism notion to bash him. Columnist Kathleen Parker captured the essence of the argument in a recent piece when she said: "On the right, the word 'exceptional' - or 'exceptionalism' - lately has become a litmus test for patriotism. It's the new flag lapel pin, the one-word pocket edition of the U.S. Constitution. To many on the left, it has become birther code for 'he's not one of us.' "Between left and right, however, are those who merely want affirmation that all is right with the world. Most important, they want assurance that the president shares their values. So why won't Obama just deliver the one word that would prompt arias from his doubters?" My answer, all is not right with the world and the president, while embracing the moral leadership role that should go with the office he holds, tends to have a nuanced view of the world - not black/white, neither uniquely exceptional or standard run of the mill. The president is trying hard, against the last 100 years of history, to pull us back from the kind of exceptional arrogance that once led us into Vietnam and more recently into Iraq. For the exceptional crowd, its impossible to believe that the rest of the world just doesn't get on the with the notion that it is American manifest destiny to lead the world and, when necessary, reshape it our liking. Which brings us to Donald Rumsfeld. The advance press on his new book - it sounds like a standard score settler sure to get him on TV a great deal - seems sure to remind his detractors, including John McCain, of Rummy's fundamental arrogance. The man who brought us such memorable lines as "stuff happens" in response to widespread Iraqi looting after the invasion and "known unknowns" about the non-existing weapons of mass destruction, says he has few regrets about Iraq. Rumsfeld is a metaphor for American foreign policy cluelessness. Not only did he get almost everything wrong about the American invasion of Iraq, he clearly doesn't possess the self reflection gene necessary to learn some of the all-too-obvious lessons. The real known unknown is what America doesn't know - and usually refuses to learn - about the rest of the great world. We never seem to learn the limits to which others in the world are willing to embrace our ideals and follow our lead. We may be repeating this time tested mistake now in Egypt, Yemen and the rest of the volatile Middle East. “We evidently think,” Idaho Sen. Frank Church once said, “that everything which happens abroad is our business…we have plunged into these former colonial regions as though we have been designated on high to act as trustee in bankruptcy for broken empires.” The Middle East is ancient ground. The yoke of British, Ottoman, French and other colonial empires - and what must look to many young Arabs like the new American Empire - hangs uneasily over the region. Young people in Tunisia and Egypt, empowered by access to the Internet and ideas - not always ideas we like, for sure - are demanding change. It is hubris to think that our notions of what makes America exceptional is necessarily going to appeal, or be right, for them. One Middle Eastern analyst, Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center in Qatar, says it bluntly: "No one in the region is pro-American anymore. The only hope is if Obama uses this opportunity to re-orientate U.S. policy in a fundamental way," he said. "Otherwise, I think we're losing the Arab world." With thousands of our troops spread across the region, with billions lavished on Mubarak for more than 30 years - by one estimate the old boy is worth as much as $70 billion - we're down to being an after thought to the people in the street. Writing for the New York Times, the sagacious Tim Egan, offers some of the best sober reflection: "...in the Internet age, no authoritarian can keep his own people from knowing the truth," Egan writes. "Millions of Egyptians are disgusted with their leadership. They have hope. They want change. And we should stand with them with the tools of an open society: ideas and technology, and maybe a deft diplomatic nudge. Beyond that, it’s out of American hands." As we cast a very wary eye toward Cairo and beyond, a real question for Americans is whether we can be exceptional enough to understand the limits of our power; whether we can't learn the humbling lesson that our ability to cause other cultures, with different histories, religions and traditions, to embrace our way is exceptionally limited.

The Mormon Primary

2011-02-03T07:35:00.009-07:00

Romney vs. Huntsman Here's a fascinating subtext to the upcoming Republican presidential primary: Two successful, politically astute, handsome, wealthy, Mormon Republicans with deep ties to Utah and Idaho could face off in the race. It's clear that 2008 contender, and one-time front runner, Mitt Romney will run again. He even showed up on David Letterman's show this week - Dave tweaked him for not wearing a necktie - to take the barbs that go with reading a Top Ten List of things we don't know about him. Number Two, Romney joked: "I have absolutely no idea where my birth certificate is." Meanwhile, Huntsman, the fluent Mandarin speaker, is resigning as our ambassador to China to come home and put together the pieces of a run for the White House. White House insiders have had fun with this, while no doubt being really steamed about what they see as an act of a political turncoat. Huntsman was called "the Manchurian Candidate," for example, by new Chief of Staff Bill Daley and President Obama himself joked, “I’m sure that having worked so well with me will be a great asset in any Republican primary.” In a fascinating piece, Politico calls this "The Mormon Primary," and notes that the two men have little apparent regard for each other. Huntsman supported John McCain in 2008. Politico says of the likely match-up: "The implications for Republicans are stark: Their front-runner, Romney, struggled in his 2008 bid to make gains with the evangelical Christians who play an important role in Republican primaries and saw his religion as exotic, or worse. "The presence of a second Mormon in the race could help Romney by making the church seem less unusual to those who are unfamiliar with it. But it seems just as likely that Huntsman, with his strikingly similar profile, would erode Romney’s base of support, reordering the GOP field." In Utah, where folks know Romney as the savior of the 2002 Winter Olympics and Huntsman as a successful governor from a very prominent business family, a recent poll shows the former Massachusetts governor, not the former Utah governor, as the favorite of Utah Republicans. Writing at the Utah Policy website, Bob Bernick, dissects the polling, the politics and the religion and the LDS Church-owned Deseret News rounds up some of the national coverage the potential match-up has been generating. An underlying theme in the national attention on these two men is, of course, their religious faith and its clear from the 2008 race that Romney's LDS faith presented real problems when it came to his appeal to the evangelical base of the modern Republican Party. As the respected analyst Stuart Rothenberg wrote back then: "Many in the media portray evangelical attitudes toward Mormonism as a form of bigotry and religious intolerance akin to the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic sentiment that was once so prevalent in this country and is much rarer these days. But it is a very different kind of concern, a concern about the meaning of Christianity." At least one other thing is fascinating about both Romney and Huntsman being in the GOP primary hunt. Both have real records. Romney's in business, the Olympic turnaround and as a Blue State governor who championed a health care bill not all that dissimilar to the Republican hated Obamacare. Huntsman's record involves time as an innovative governor who then resigned that post to accept the appointment of a Democratic president to a very high profile diplomatic post. While Romney has been hitting the hustings in New Hampshire and courting the Tea Party, Huntsman, as a diplomat, has largely been a back bench observer of issues like health care, the Wall Street bailout and the political turmoil that lead to a GOP takeover of the House. Which posture - Romney's or Huntsman's - offers the best positioning for 2012? We may be about to find out.

Budget Blues

2011-02-02T09:00:00.002-07:00

Lessons from The Beehive State The Utah state budget is far from flush. The Salt Lake Tribune laments, as legislators do, a $313 million "structural deficit" in Utah. Having a "structural deficit" essentially means the state is spending more than it takes in. Most states have this problem, Idaho included. As noted here yesterday, the Brookings Institution's Mountain West Project has identified a variety of reasons for the fundamentally unbalanced nature of western state's budgets. The reasons range from tax policies that gave away the farm in the form of tax breaks during flush times to antiquated tax structures - like Nevada's - that overly rely on tourism and home building. As for Idaho, some have long argued that the state's tax structure, essentially unchanged since the sales tax was put in place in 1966, no longer reflects an economy built around high tech, services and recreation. If you buy that argument it begins to explain why Idaho, even given the deep cuts in state budgets over the last three years, is likely to continue - post-recession - to have revenue problems. That is a structural deficit. Still, even with its underlying budget problems, Utah looks pretty good right now having avoided much of the fallout from the burst housing bubble and having in place a sound approach to budgeting and managing state government. And, by comparison to most of her neighbors, Utah is ahead of the game in addressing its structural problems.

Utah lawmakers so far are resisting further dips into the state's rainy day fund and the state's overall approach to budget and policy making continues to earn kudos from independent analysts.

In 2008, the Pew Center on the States called Utah "the best managed state" in the nation. Utah got a A- (so did Washington) in the sober, technical Pew study. Idaho, by contrast was back in the pack with Wyoming with a B- grade. Nevada, Montana and Oregon got gentlemanly C+ grades.

One reason Utah scored so high in this analysis was the management systems instituted during the governorship of Jon Huntsman. Huntsman, who recently resigned as U.S. ambassador to China in order to reportedly launch a Republican presidential bid, instituted a number of wonkish, but effective management approaches that impressed the Pew folks.

Here's some of what was said: "Utah manages all facets of state government well, emphasizing long-term goals and performance outcomes. The executive and legislative branches work together effectively to align expenditures with the strategic direction of the state. Utah has also changed the organizational structure of agencies in order to ensure success, embedding human resources and information technology staff in every state agency to better assist with long term management needs."

The Pew study concludes with this about Utah: "In sum, routine, evidence- and process-driven review has enabled one Mountain West state to catch an incipient structural deficit early and act intentionally to rectify it before it becomes entrenched."

Words to budget - and make policy - by.

The State Fiscal Crisis

2011-02-01T09:00:00.000-07:00

It's Worse Than You Think California's new - old - governor, Jerry Brown, delivered his State of State address to the legislature last night. Lots of gloom and doom, not surprisingly, and calls for more drastic spending cuts and the extension of taxes. California's budget deficit is $25 billion - with a B. That amounts to 30 percent of the state's budget and, if that problem and the certain prospect of additional cuts in education and social services weren't bad enough, the painful reality for California and many other states is that a sizable portion of these huge deficits are literally baked into the fiscal cake of state governments for years to come. The Brookings Institution's Mountain West project, in cooperation with the Morrison Institute of Public Policy at Arizona State University, recently analyzed these so called "structural deficits" in four western states, California included. Researchers concluded that the structural portions of the current state deficits are "the more or less permanent imbalances of revenues and expenditures that can arise from flaws in a state's fiscal structure, fundamental changes in the regional economy or the state's demographics, or, especially, imprudent or shortsighted policy choices." The study also looked at Arizona which "gave away the store in better times by handing out a series of ill-advised tax cuts (total value, adjusting for inflation and growth: $2.9 billion since 1993);" Nevada where a "narrow, consumption and real estate-oriented revenue system may well now be ill-attuned to a post-Recession "new normal" in which migration, homebuilding, and gaming are permanently depressed;" and Colorado were a "taxpayers bill of rights" has crippled revenue options and the funding for public education. As for California, the study concluded that the state had "basically enacted too many permanent spending increases (notably on education) during the dot.com boom and more recent good times even as it left in place a series of rigid voter mandates and tax limitations." To put the situation even more bluntly, many states have for two decades been spending, tax forgiving and limiting their fiscal options; in essence behaving as mini versions of the federal government. So, while the economy will eventually recover and grow again, some of these state policy choices involving taxes and spending are truly "baked" into the system. Idaho lawmakers had a rude awakening to this structural reality with the sudden discovery last week that a renewable energy tax credit coupled with routine conformance with the federal tax code is costing the state huge amounts of money. Many folks would rush, as the legislature did a while back, to embrace a tax credit to encourage renewables and the policy obviously worked. What is often missing when these policy choices are adopted is the long view. It is one thing to embrace an immediately attractive tax policy today, it is something else to consider that the diverted cash, now missing from the state budget, will come at the expense of an education or human services budget in the future. The Brookings report offered four sensible policy suggestions. States should, and I quote from the report:

Commit to a balanced approach. Massive budget gaps cannot be responsibly closed by only cutting spending. Budgetary balance and revenue diversification are crucial. In addition to balance and diversification, broad bases and tax system responsiveness should be mantras of fiscal system repair. Tax policies that increase the base and elasticity of state tax systems reduce the need for discretionary and unpopular rate increases.
Maintain adequate rainy day funds. Most of the Mountain states exhausted their rainyday funds well before relieving their acute fiscal stress. As the economy gets back on its feet, state governments need to not just replenish, but increase their rainy day funds so that they can better weather protracted economic downturns in the future.
Increase local flexibility and control. States have a history of passing measures that constrain local governments’ ability to raise revenues and respond to changing fiscal circumstances. Those local governments need greater control over revenue generation and public service.
Improve budget processes and information sharing. Good policy decisions rest on good information and common-sense processes for delivering that information to the people who need it. Decision-makers need to have good data clearly presented about real and projected conditions, the range of policy options, and their consequences.

It must be noted, in contrast to those policy prescriptions, that Idaho lawmakers are still vowing to hold the line on any revenue diversification even as the state's economy has changed dramatically in the last 30 years and more drastic cuts loom. The state's reserve funds are gone and the idea of more local control for local governments is about as popular as a skunk at a garden party. In fact, the Idaho Statesman's Dan Popkey reported that some lawmakers have hungry eyes focused on that portion of the state sales tax that flows to local government. That's not more local control, but less. And, while Idaho has a long history of transparency in its budget process, missing until last week the multi-million dollar impact on state revenues of an established tax credit indicates there is a lot of room for improvement. The Brookings report is a sobering assessment of the state budget troubles that loom ahead even as the economy starts to recover. Tomorrow, why Utah is in considerably better shape than much of the rest of the west.

The Moral Test

2011-01-29T10:00:00.003-07:00

Hard Cases "The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life; the children, those who are in the twilight of life; the elderly, and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped." The quote is most often attributed to the liberal icon Hubert Humphrey and dates to a time when there was a broad consensus in American life that government had a very precise role to play in trying to improve the plight of those fellow citizens "in the shadows of life." The lingering Great Recession more than ever has called that role of government into question and, at the same time, made Hubert's eloquent quote more relevant than ever. A massive human hurt is unfolding in nearly every state as governors and state legislators contemplate unprecedented reductions in spending on various services paid for at the state level by Medicaid. In states like Idaho, all the easy stuff has been cut. Now the real pain begins, as illustrated by the estimated 1,000 Idahoans who showed up on Friday, some in wheelchairs, to show state legislators, more eloquently than words ever could, just what the American social safety net really means to real people. With the 50 states collectively facing a budget gap estimated at $125 billion, the New York Times reports today that Medicaid is "ripe for the slashing" from New York to California, from Idaho to Texas. The times are tough - very tough - but I doubt that even tough-minded, fiscally conservative legislators can live with the implications of ending services for a guy in a wheelchair or an 8th grader with autism. In Idaho, 20 lawmakers, the members of the powerful Joint Finance-Appropriations Committee (JFAC), make most every spending decision for the rest of the 85 members of the legislature. It is an awesome power and responsibility. The committee has co-chairs, Sen. Dean Cameron and Rep. Maxine Bell, and no one has ever credibly accused these experienced lawmakers of being big spenders. They run a tidy ship and one has to be impressed with the diligence they and their committee have lavished on the hard choices the state faces with both Medicaid and education. Cameron and Bell deserve a lot of praise for showing the political courage to open up the committee to those thousand people who came calling on Friday. It had to have been a sobering experience for anyone paying attention. Here's a fearless prediction. Arguably the most conservative legislature in the nation won't be able to make the $25 million in Medicaid cuts that Idaho's governor has proposed. It will take a while yet for the reality to sink in, its still early in the legislative process, but Friday was an important day. Not only did the thousand show up, but the budget numbers that have been in dispute since the first day of the 2011 session just gained some clarity and not in a good way. All this will eventually lead to a frantic search for some barely acceptable source of new revenue to help plug the budget holes. The legislature will come to embrace, in tried and true fashion, the method of patch and scratch tax policy making. Some how, some way, Idaho's very conservative legislature will "find" some new revenue to avoid these awful choices. It won't be easy, and people elected never to raise taxes will anguish over the choices, but it will happen I think. Idaho's lawmakers have come face-to-face with their fellow citizens who really do, through no fault of their own, live in the shadows. In the end, it will not really be much of a political test. No one is likely to lose an election by making a vote to preserve home care services for an elderly, wheelchair bound neighbor. It will be quite a moral test, however, for lawmakers who infrequently see so clearly the impact of their votes.

Now We Know - Maybe

2011-01-28T17:00:00.001-07:00

Legislate Then Investigate The commission investigating the causes of the "worst economic crisis since the Great Depression" has issued its report and - big surprise - the group split along partisan lines. Democrats issued a majority report, while Republicans offered their own take on who and what was to blame for the Great Recession; the recession that is technically over, but still seems to hang around like a relative who just doesn't know when to leave once the Thanksgiving dinner is over. One of the better bits of analysis of the huge report is from former Bush speechwriter David Frum. Frum writes: "The report...argues that everything that people needed to know was there to be known. The crisis was not a 'hurricane': It was more like a housefire in a home where people routinely smoked in bed." And there's this: "Americans withdrew $2.0 trillion in home equity between 2000 and 2007. At a time of stagnating incomes for most Americans, the housing boom financed the appearance of economic progress – one reason government was so reluctant to act. Minus the housing bubble, I doubt very much that President Bush would have been re-elected in 2004." If you really want to get into this analysis, here are some terrific charts that help to break up the hard facts into somewhat understandable chunks. One of the striking conclusions you reach in reviewing this new report and in reading the mountain of writing that has been produced in books and articles is that many of the so called Titans of Wall Street had, at best, a weak grasp on the facts of the situation facing the economy, not to mention detailed knowledge of what was happening in their own institutions. One juicy headline from the Commission's work is the admission by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, an academic scholar of the Great Depression by the way, that 12 of the 13 major Wall Street financial firms were at the very brink of failure late in 2008. Unfortunately the work of the Commission, tainted by the lack of political consensus, is likely to take us no where in particular. The hopes that a rational, coherent explanation of what cause the economic collapse would lead to a careful reassessment of whether more regulation is needed, whether the biggest of the big banks are too big, etc. just hasn't happened. In fact, unlike the justly celebrated Pecora Commission in the early 1930's that lead to the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the passage of banking regulation that, seems to me, served us pretty well for the rest of the century, Congress legislated before the Commission reported. Hope they got it right. Here is some sobering news for the week just ending, the week that saw the Dow top 12,000 and in which it was reported that a Wall Street hedge fund manager personally made $5 billion in profits last year, "Our financial system is really not very different today in 2011 than it was in the run up to this crisis." That quote comes from one of the commission members, Byron Georgiou, who spent the last year trying to understand why we came so close to complete economic disaster; a disaster that has done so much short- and long-term damage to so many people. Here's hoping we aren't setting ourselves up for an even more devastating Round Two.

Odds and Ends

2011-01-27T09:30:00.003-07:00

Of No Particular Importance... Most major league baseball teams have pitchers and catchers report to spring training round about Feb. 14. It doesn't mark the end of winter, but perhaps the beginning of the end and that is something. Boston has had 50 inches of snow this winter. Do you think Red Sox fans are anxious for spring? I'm still nursing the hurt over the Diamondbacks and Rockies abandoning Tucson in favor of another spring training outpost in the Phoenix suburbs. So much for old school. Baseball in the spring has been a fixture in Tucson since 1946. Not this year. The D-backs and Colorado will share a spanking new ballpark - Salt River Fields. I'm boycotting and plan on seeing the hapless Cubs in Mesa, the A's in their venerable little band box in Phoenix and the World Champions in downtown Scottsdale. Hope springs eternal in the spring. Everyone is in first place on opening day. Kennedy Memories My old friend Joel Connelly had a nice piece recently at the Seattle P-I's online site on memories of John Kennedy in the Northwest. Joel, a great recorder of the region's political lore, relates a wonderful story about JFK and legendary Washington Sen. Warren Magnuson. The Times on the Times I've long believed the single most difficult thing for "the media" to do is to report on itself. Most reporters and editors are generally loathe to criticize each other, unless its someone like Bill O'Reilly tweaking Keith Olbermann. That makes this story in the New York Times reporting on dissatisfaction in Los Angeles with the L.A. Times so interesting. Here's the money quote. The NYT's media critic quotes a long-time LA Times reader as saying: “We need a paper that’s more, and this is less. I think it’s just not a world-class paper, no matter how you cut it. It used to be a world-class paper.” Analysis and comment at the Columbia Journalism Review site further dissects the Times coverage of the Times. My take: I have long admired both papers and have had my gripes with each, but the LA Times is today a far cry from what it was when Otis Chandler was in charge. Sargent Shriver Lots of memorials, appropriately, to the first man JFK put in charge of the Peace Corps - Sargent Shriver. The wake for the very Catholic Shriver was a classic sad and hilarious recalling of his quite remarkable life. The serious side of Shriver is well summarized in a nice piece by Richard Reeves and the funniest story was told in Adam Clymer's tribute at the Daily Beast. Clymer told a story he attributed to Democratic consultant Bob Shrum, a longtime friend of Shriver's. "One afternoon [Shrum] and Shriver arrived at the Shriver home as Eunice was running a Special Olympics event. She had put out a wine punch for the athletes' parents. Sarge sampled it and asked what wine was used. A servant said Eunice had told them to just take anything handy. They had opened a case of Chateau Lafite Rothschild '48, a gift from Giscard d'Estaing, president of France when Shriver served as ambassador. Shrum reports that Shriver was momentarily nonplussed, but then smiled and said, 'Then we'd better drink a lot of it.'" I have no idea what a bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild '48 is worth, but a bottle of '82 sold at a wine auction in 2009 for $3,300. The 1948 vintage is rated as a "moderate to good vintage." That was some wine punch.

Heir Apparent

2011-01-26T06:45:00.003-07:00

There's a Trend Here... Now that Idaho's statewide elected officials have taken the oath of office for the next four years, we can safely start the speculation about four years from now. You won't find many "political observers" in Idaho who wouldn't make book on the fact that the state's current Lt. Gov. Brad Little is the prohibitive favorite to be the state's next chief executive when current Gov. Butch Otter is ready to ride to the sunset. While Gov. Otter is, appropriately, receiving most of the attention at the moment as the state struggles with another year of bleak revenue forecasts, shrinking budgets and many, many tough decisions, Little grabbed a bit of the political spotlight with a very well attended fundraising breakfast in Boise on January 7. That just happened to be the morning that he, Otter and the rest of the statewide electeds were sworn in for their new terms. While it is dangerous to assume anything in politics, I'm betting that nearly everyone at the Lt. Governor's breakfast earlier this month entertains the expectation that the affable Little is the odds-on heir apparent. After all, while taking nothing away from his obvious political talents and demonstrated appeal, Little seems to be part of the now established trend in Idaho of the "Light" Governor having the leg up on moving up. Four of the last six Idaho governors, including Otter, have served as Lt. Governor before gaining the big job. This trend really began when John Evans succeeded Cecil Andrus in 1977 when Andrus went to Washington to serve as Secretary of the Interior. Before Evans got his chance to move into the big office in the west wing of the Statehouse, you have to go all the way back to Arnold Williams in the late 1940's to find an Idaho Lt. Governor who become Governor. Andrus returned to the governorship in 1986 and Phil Batt, who had been Lt. Governor under Evans, followed him. Jim Risch, now in the U.S. Senate, was appointed Lt. Governor and moved up when Dirk Kempthorne went to the Bush cabinet. Then it became Otter's turn in 2006. Kempthorne is the outlier in this group. He went from the U.S. Senate to the governorship, the first person in Idaho history to do that. Interestingly, only one Idahoan, three-term GOP Gov. Bob Smylie, moved up from the Attorney Generals' office. Prior to Evans moving up in the 1980's, conventional wisdom held that the surest road to the governorship was through the state legislature. Andrus made that move, as did Don Samuelson before him. In fact, of the 19 men who have served as Idaho's governor since 1920, 13 of them served in the legislature before becoming governor. So, you want to be governor of Idaho - this sounds simpler than it is - do your time in the state legislature, as Little has done (the Senate is a generally a better stepping stone than the House) and then get yourself elected to the Number Two job. Nothing is ever pre-determined in politics - nothing - but that path is now pretty well-worn in Idaho.

Nullification

2011-01-25T07:00:00.004-07:00

We Fought a War Over This... As Idaho and a half dozen other states prepare legislation to attempt to "nullify" the federal health care law, including apparently sanctions against anyone trying to implement the law, it may be worth remembering that 150 years ago this week the future President of the Confederacy stood on the floor of the United States Senate and spoke his farewells. A good part of Sen. Jefferson Davis' speech on Jan. 21, 1861 was devoted to the doctrine of nullification. His home state of Mississippi was leaving the Union, Davis said, and, in his mind at least, it naturally followed that he had to leave the Senate of the United States. Davis explained his theory of his duties as a citizen and made it clear that his allegiance to Ole Miss came before his country. "If I had thought that Mississippi was acting without sufficient provocation," he said, "or without an existing necessity, I should still, under my theory of the Government, because of my allegiance to the State of which I am a citizen, have been bound by her action." My state right or wrong, apparently. Davis went on at some length to draw a distinction between what he and Mississippi were doing - leaving the Union - and the theory, widely advanced in the 1830's by John C. Calhoun, of nullification. "Nullification and secession, so often confounded, are, indeed, antagonistic principles," Davis said. "Nullification is a remedy which it is sought to apply within the Union, against the agent of the States. It is only to be justified when the agent has violated his constitutional obligations, and a State, assuming to judge for itself, denies the right of the agent thus to act, and appeals to the other states of the Union for a decision; but, when the States themselves and when the people of the States have so acted as to convince us that they will not regard our constitutional rights, then, and then for the first time, arises the doctrine of secession in its practical application." In his somewhat tortured assessment of nationhood, Davis explained what Calhoun was trying to do by advocating nullification, or as he described it a state "assuming to judge for itself." "It was because of [Calhoun's] deep-seated attachment to the Union - his determination to find some remedy for existing ills short of a severance of the ties which bound South Carolina to the other States - that Mr. Calhoun advocated the doctrine of nullification, which he proclaimed to be peaceful, to be within the limits of State power, not to disturb the Union, but only to be a means of bringing the agent before the tribunal of the States for their judgement. "Secession belongs to a different class of remedies. It is to be justified upon the basis that the states are sovereign. There was a time when none denied it. I hope the time may come again when a better comprehension of the theory of our Government, and the inalienable rights of the people of the States, will prevent any one from denying that each State is a sovereign, and thus may reclaim the grants which it has made to any agent whomsoever." In other words, disunion in the mind of Jefferson Davis was a logical follow on to nullification for a sovereign state. The trouble with Idaho's approach to this fundamental Constitutional guestion is that it neglects a good slice of the last 150 years of American history; those years since Davis made his passionate defense of state's rights. Our ancestors fought a bloody and protracted Civil War to resolve these very questions. As a result, the United States became a singular nation, as the great historian Shelby Foote loved to point out. Prior to Lee's surrender to Grant in 1865, it was common to refer to the "United States are." But our history and our courts have consistently held since that the "United States is." Still, every few years nullification comes roaring back. During the civil rights era, ten different southern states sought to nullify the historic 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court ultimately ruled in 1958 in Cooper v. Aaron that the Brown ruling, ending segregation, could "neither be nullified openly and directly by state legislators or state executive or judicial officers nor nullified indirectly by them through evasive schemes for segregation." Idaho's foremost Constitutional scholar, Dr. David Adler, recently told the Associated Press that nullification proponents are conveniently overlooking a lot of our history. "The premise of their position and the reasoning behind it are severely flawed and have no support in our Constitutional architecture," Adler said. In their zeal to overturn an act of Congress, the proponents of nullification cite, as Jefferson Davis did on the brink of the Civil War, the "high and solemn motive of defending and protecting the rights we inherited," not to mention the wisdom of Jefferson and Madison. Funny, they rarely mention that old fire breather, Calhoun. Through a terrible Civil War and on through the long and continuing struggle for civil rights, the United States gradually and imperfectly became one country of many states. Through elections and court cases, debate and discourse, we have arrived at a federal government that makes laws and attempts, not always ably, to apply them fairly to all the people. If folks don't like those laws, they do have recourse - legal recourse. They can sue in the courts, as Idaho has done over the health care legislation, or they can have an election to change the Congress. Neither available legal approach, historically or Constitutionally, sanctions nullification. Maybe that is so because wise leaders, at least since Jefferson Davis, have been able to see where such a doctrine logically can lead. The great Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter wrote a concurring opinion in Aaron more than 50 years ago and captured the essence of what is at sake in preserving our federal system. "Lincoln's appeal to 'the better angels of our nature' failed to avert a fratricidal war," Frankfurter wrote in 1958. "But the compassionate wisdom of Lincoln's First and Second Inaugurals bequeathed to the Union, cemented with blood, a moral heritage which, when drawn upon in times of stress and strife, is sure to find specific ways and means to surmount difficulties that may appear to be insurmountable."

Great Political Reads

2011-01-24T06:00:00.001-07:00

A Top Ten List Legislatures are in session, the president is poised to deliver the State of the Union and we just marked the 50th anniversary of JFK's inaugural. All politics all the time. So...writing recently about Richard Ben Cramer's political classic What It Takes got me thinking about some of my favorite political reads. Here, in no particular order, is a Top Ten List of Political Reads - or a Top Eleven counting Cramer's tome, which has to be on any list of mine. Here goes. 1. Truman by David McCullough. Certainly among the greatest political biographies, McCullough won the Pulitzer for his great writing and research and this booked helped rehabilitate the reputation of the Man from Missouri. 2. They Also Ran by Irving Stone. This is the fascinating story of the men who ran for president and lost. In chapter length profiles, Stone groups these "losers" into categories like "Generals Die in the Army" and "Wall Street Lawyers." This classic was published in 1943, so it ends with the story of that "loser" Wendell Willkie who, with the full benefit of hindsight, seems to have been a remarkable man. In fact, Stone makes a compelling case that many of those who ran for the White House and lost were every bit as able - and often better - than those who won. 3. Shooting Star by Tom Wicker. There are many, many good books about controversial Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy, but if you read just one you will find none better than Wicker's little volume. The great one-time New York Times writer establishes McCarthy in his times with all his well-documented excesses, but also offers a nuanced view - too nuanced for some critics - of McCarthy's troubled personality. This is a critical book, but also fair and full of color sustained by the perspective of a political reporter who knows politics and politicians. 4. Huey Long by T. Harry Williams. Another biography, this one exhaustive, of another demagogue. Long was a brilliant Louisiana communicator/politician who rose from humble beginnings to command a virtual state dictatorship. Williams' book is highly readable and, some would argue, more sympathetic to the Kingfish than it should be, but it is also a classic work of political history. By 1935, Long had become a national figure - his radio speeches were powerful, funny and frightening. He also became a threat from the left to Franklin Roosevelt's re-election. Long's life ended in September 1935 in a hail of gunfire in the hallway of the capitol building he had built in Baton Rouge, but the Long dynasty survived. The Long family produced another governor, a congressman and Huey's senator son Russell who, like his papa, was one of the great political figures in the history of the United States Senate. 5. Advice and Consent by Allen Drury. Drury was a Congressional correspondent when he wrote his classic 1959 novel about a bitter Senate confirmation battle. The book has lasting appeal as a look inside the exclusive club, complete with deals, double crosses, sex, scandal and statesmanship. 6. Senator Mansfield by Don Oberdorfer. Montana's Mike Mansfield was a great Senator and perhaps, with apologies to Lyndon Johnson, the most constructive Senate Majority Leader in history. In former Washington Post reporter Don Oberdorfer's masterful biography, Mansfield emerges as a great thinker and a profoundly decent man; the model of a modern senator. 7. The 103rd Ballot by Robert K. Murray. It is hard to believe these days, with our national political conventions little more than carefully choreographed TV commercials, that years ago the conventions were great political theatre where presidential candidacies were both born and buried. In 1924, Democrats took an unbelievable 103 ballots to nominate a compromise candidate John W. Davis who, not surprisingly, took the horribly divided party to disastrous defeat. That convention - one observer noted that Democrats had taken a week to commit political suicide - is detailed in Murray's colorful history, complete with the KKK, prohibition, religion and, did I mention, large doses of bare knuckle politics. 8. Five Days in Philadelphia by Charles Peters. There have been, I think, two absolutely pivotal presidential elections in American history: 1864 when Lincoln was re-elected and thereby able to prosecute the Civil War to its ultimate end and 1940 when Franklin Roosevelt won an unprecedented third term and a chance to lead the country away from isolationism. Peters' great little book centers on the GOP nominating process in 1940 and the convention in Philadelphia that nominated Wendell Willkie. Willkie was the last true "dark horse" to win a presidential nomination. 9. Mick - The Real Michael Collins by Peter Hart. I'm both fascinated and repelled by the complex and frequently awful history of modern Irish politics. Any effort to understand the complex tale of modern Ireland must include the story of the great Irish Republican leader Michael Collins. Collins was both general and politician, but mostly brilliant political strategist and manager. He was also clever, ambitious, brave and brutal. He lost his life during the Irish Civil War in 1922. Collins had a pivotal role in the negotiations with the British - the British delegation included Winston Churchill - that resulted in the Anglo-Irish Treaty. The treaty helped secure Irish independence, but was so unpopular with some that it also precipitated the civl war. As a practical, pragmatic peacemaker, Collins defended the treaty and knew that in doing so he might well have written his death warrant. Nearly 90 years after his death, Collins' grave in Dublin's Glasnevin Cemetery is still every day festooned with fresh flowers. 10. Master of the Senate by Robert A. Caro. Caro's monumental, multi-volume biography of LBJ is notable for the vast reach of his research, but also for his unrelenting (and at times unfair) critique of Johnson's remarkable career. Still, the third volume on Johnson's years as Senate Majority Leader, is as good a portrait of the Senate as any every crafted. The publication of the final volume of Caro's nearly life-long work on Johnson will be a major milestone, but who knows when he'll be finished with it. Caro took 12 years to write Master of the Senate. It is a huge book and hugely important. There you have it - a Top Ten list for a political junkie.

Fifty Years Ago...

2011-01-20T12:00:00.002-07:00

Kennedy Library Launches Website The Kennedy Presidential Library has launched a fabulous new website - http://www.jfk50.org/ - to mark the 50th anniversary of the inauguration of our 35th president - a half century ago this very day. The site is organized by both subject matter and by a timeline of the Kennedy presidency. Take a minute to visit and walk through the historic events of 50 years ago. This is a great presentation of history and a remarkable use of the tools of modern communication. Two words: great stuff.

And more...

Kennedy's best biographer, Robert Dallek, has a great piece at the Salon website today. Dallek asks "why do we admire a president who did so little?"

His answer, in part, is to compare Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, two masters of communication.

Says Dallek: "Like T.R.'s bully pulpit and FDR's fireside chats, Kennedy’s press conferences, which underscored his personal charm, wit, youth and intelligence, and Reagan’s talents as the 'great communicator' are enduring parts of their legacies.

"Unlike Washington and Lincoln, whose reputations rest respectively on building and preserving the nation, Kennedy and Reagan, to borrow a phrase from the historian Richard Hofstadter, were and remain the master psychologists of the middle classes."

Great Speeches Week

2011-01-17T11:00:00.003-07:00

Eisenhower, Kennedy and King It is Martin Luther King, Jr, Day, a good day to remember Dr. King's remarkable impact on the evolution of American notions about civil rights and to acknowledge the work that remains. And, even though King made his most famous speech in August, no MLK Day is complete without remembering one of the great speeches ever delivered in the English language, his "I Have a Dream Speech" from 1963. This week also marks the 50th anniversary of two other truly memorable speeches - Dwight Eisenhower's farewell were he warned of the rise of the "unwarranted influence" of the "military-industrial complex" and John F. Kennedy's inaugural where he summoned the nation to "ask not" what the country can do for us. Remarkably these two speeches - delivered just three days apart in January 1961 - speak to us still across half a century. Eisenhower, the popular president and former five star general, it is now clear, labored at length over his final speech from the White House considering it, as his grandson says, a significant part of his legacy of public service. Fifty years later, with the American military engaged in two wars and the nation's enormous power projected in every corner of the world, Eisenhower's words speak an enduring truth and, like Kennedy, he called the country to informed, engaged citizenship. As David Eisenhower told NPR over the weekend, his grandfather's "farewell address, in the final analysis, is about internal threats posed by vested interests to the democratic process. But above all, it is addressed to citizens — and about citizenship." Kennedy's great speech, delivered on January 20, 1961, can be read as a companion piece to the speech of his predecessor and it was also about citizenship and responsibility. Speaking in the context of the nuclear arms race with the then-Soviet Union, Kennedy said: "So let us begin anew -- remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear, but let us never fear to negotiate." Those words, in the context of our domestic politics today, certainly ring true. In the age of Twitter and text messages some might argue that the spoken word or political rhetoric has lost its power to inform and stimulate. Three classic speeches we remember this week leave us with an entirely different message. Enduring truth, delivered with genuine conviction and deeply imbuded with knowledge, is always powerful. As Dr. King so powerfully said: "The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy." All three great Americans spoke in their most famous speeches to "the ultimate measure of a man" and their words live on.

Billy Collins

2011-01-14T07:00:00.002-07:00

The History Teacher When I saw the story that Idaho's State School Superintendent Tom Luna had pulled a pop history quiz on lawmakers on the legislature's education committees, and that 17% couldn't name the year Idaho became a state and that 15% didn't know Lewiston was the original capital, I thought immediately of Billy Collins' wonderful little poem - The History Teacher. Trying to protect his students' innocence he told them the Ice Age was really just the Chilly Age, a period of a million years when everyone had to wear sweaters. And the Stone Age became the Gravel Age, named after the long driveways of the time. The Spanish Inquisition was nothing more than an outbreak of questions such as "How far is it from here to Madrid?" "What do you call the matador's hat?" The War of the Roses took place in a garden, and the Enola Gay dropped one tiny atom on Japan. The children would leave his classroom for the playground to torment the weak and the smart, mussing up their hair and breaking their glasses, while he gathered up his notes and walked home past flower beds and white picket fences, wondering if they would believe that soldiers in the Boer War told long, rambling stories designed to make the enemy nod off.

Idaho became a state in 1890, by the way.

Mourner-in-Chief

2011-01-13T14:00:00.000-07:00

A Good Dose of Humility My favorite presidential historian, Robert Dallek, as well as anyone has, caught the essence of last night's remarkable speech in Tucson by Barack Obama. "The president is not just the prime minister, he's also the king," says Dallek. "And he has to be a healing force to speak to the grief." As a time when pundits, critics and pretenders to the Oval Office were wondering whether Obama had the right stuff to pull off a unifying speech in the wake of the Tucson tragedy, he came up with, I think, just the right tone and several great lines, including this one: "What we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another." TIME magazine has a great take on the demanding, delicate job of the President as Consoler-in-Chief. While it may be hard to make the case that any one speech from any one president really has lasting impact in this superheated media age, think of the lasting impact of Lincoln at Gettysburg, Reagan after the Challenger disaster or Clinton after the bombing of the Oklahoma City federal building. A pitch-perfect, heartfelt speech of mourning, as each of those were, has historically helped define a presidency. Obama's speech at McKale Memorial Center in Tucson may prove to be the moment when the nation sized him up as a leader and not just as a politician.

The Giffords Story

2011-01-10T15:00:00.001-07:00

The Whole World is Watching "Anger, hatred, bigotry" - the headline in the Sydney, Australia Morning Herald. "A disturbing story about American political culture" - said the editorial in the Globe and Mail, Canada's major national newspaper. A blogger for the Financial Times writes, "The idea that there is anything in common between the politics of the United States and Pakistan might seem absurd. But both countries have suffered appalling acts of political violence this week. And in both cases, the victims were moderate voices who spoke out for liberal values." While the debate continues in U.S. newspapers and over the air about the cause and meaning of the tragic attack on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 19 others in Tucson last Saturday, the press in the rest of the world is watching and commenting. It is a fascinating case study in how the U.S. is seen by much of the rest of the world. A while back I heard a speaker who had lived in Canada for a number of years quip that "Canada is the place where everyone has health insurance and no one has a hand gun." There was nervous laughter from the U.S. crowd. The Globe and Mail's editorial on the Tucson shootings got quickly to its point: "Start with guns: Legally, they are sacrosanct. And not just any guns. In Arizona, any 'law-abiding' person over 21 is allowed to carry a concealed handgun practically anywhere in the state, including into the state legislature, in bars and on school grounds." In a round-up of world coverage of the story, the GlobalPost site noted: "Argentina’s biggest daily, Clarin, published a 500-word piece by their Washington correspondent, Ana Baron, who focused heavily on Arizona’s tough stance on Latino immigration and what she described as the 'growth of hatred and intolerance in U.S. politics.' Perhaps tellingly, the story’s first quote was Pima County Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik’s widely-recounted remark that his home state of Arizona has become a 'Mecca for prejudice and bigotry.'" The same site noted that Britain's politically-oriented print media covered the shootings as political commentary. The right-leaning Daily Telegraph criticized American blogs and liberals for rushing to paint the attacks as a product of a right-wing fanatic despite the lack of evidence that the shooter had anything to do with the Tea Party or any other group. "This is highly inconvenient for certain people on the Left so they ignore it," wrote the paper's Washington editor. "They would much prefer the shooter to have been a white male in his 50s." Outside of Britain, the GlobalPost site notes, "the story has received slightly less attention. The French press is consumed by the murder of two Frenchmen murdered in Niger by an African subsidiary of Al Qaeda. The German press has major flooding along the Rhine to contend with. "But the lack of prominence given to the story could be down to this: For many in Europe, violence of the sort that occurred in Tucson on Saturday is almost expected in America." Major media outlets in the U.S. provided prominent coverage over the last several days to the assassination - and that word was always used and interestingly has generally been avoided in the coverage of the Gifford's shooting - of a major political figure in Pakistan, indisputably a country with enormous strategic importance to the United States. The lead in the Washington Post, for example, said of the Pakistani killing, in words that might have been lifted from an article about Rep. Giffords: "an outspoken liberal in an increasingly intolerant nation, was shot..." because of his public stance on a controversial issue. As the Financial Times writer, Gideon Rachman, pointed out it is not all that comfortable to be compared to the dysfunctional, frequently violent politics of Pakistan, but there we are. Rachman wrote on Sunday: "Of course, the relative reactions to political violence in both countries show that Pakistan is much, much further down the road of violent intolerance. This profoundly depressing report by Mohammed Hanif illustrates how cowed liberal and tolerant voices now are in Pakistan, where many television commentators essentially argued that the governor of Punjab had it coming to him. "In the US, by contrast, all mainstream politicians and commentators are united in condemning the attempted murder of Giffords. I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies." Indeed.

Tragedy in Tucson

2011-01-09T08:00:00.002-07:00

Politics, Guns and America President Obama spoke for most Americans yesterday, as presidents do when tragedy strikes and something truly senseless happens, when he said we "would get to the bottom" of the horrific events on a sunny Saturday morning outside a Safeway store in Tucson. Get to the bottom indeed. We all tend to measure the impact of big events by the closeness of personal connection. For me, this one is close and truly does, as Tucson resident and former Bush Administration Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, make your heart bleed. I spend a good deal of time in Tucson. Our place is less than two miles from where the mayhem that took six lives, including a respected federal judge and a nine year old girl, took place. I've been in that Safeway store a hundred times, often on a sunny Saturday morning, to get my daily newspaper fix. I've also followed from a distance the promising political rise of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who now fights for her life not to mention a chance for a further political career. Before going to Congress, Giffords represented parts of Tucson in the state legislature and struck me - regardless of your partisan tint - as the kind of bright, well-spoken, committed young person we want and desperately need in our politics. While it is much too early to come to judgments about the motive - if any - of the apparently badly troubled young man who is in custody and accused, perhaps with unidentified others, as the murderer. It is nonetheless inevitable that getting to the bottom of this American tragedy will turn to politics and guns. It is already being asked if our American political culture has become so coarse, so bitter and tinged with the language of violence that such events directed at political people are made more possible. An eyewitness to the Tucson events said there was no doubt the gunman's real target was the Congresswoman. The wise and experienced old sheriff of Pima County, Clarence Dupnik - he's been sheriff for 30 years and is respected for his blunt candor - said it explicitly. "Let me say one thing," the 73-year old Dupnik told reporters yesterday, "because people tend to pooh-pooh this business about all the vitriol that we hear inflaming the American public by the people who make a living off of doing that. That may be free speech, but it's not without consequences." Dupnik, in sadness and in anger, said Arizona has become "a Mecca" for intolerance and bigotry. This much we know. Giffords' Tucson office was vandalized during the intense blizzard of national vitriol surrounding the health care legislation, she was shouted down at town hall meetings and, by all accounts, the campaign in Arizona's 8th District last year was bitter and nasty. And, of course, Sarah Palin and others used tough language and imagery, including putting crosshairs over Giffords' district, to target her for defeat last November. Giffords made note of the Palin's actions last fall when she said, "She [Palin] depicted the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. When people do that, they have to realize there are consequences." Palin, it must be noted, was one of the first to condemn the outrage. Ironically, Giffords was a true moderate in the House. She was a "Blue Dog" Democrat who cast a protest vote last week again Nancy Pelosi. She voted instead for civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis, who was himself once beaten senseless in the name of politics. Giffords proudly read the First Amendment on the House floor last week during the reading of the Constitution and she was widely regarded as a calming voice in a divided district. Consequences. Words are powerful weapons and, at times, the alarming coarseness of American political rhetoric does seem seriously deranged and dangerous. Calls for civility have never seemed more timely or more necessary. The Los Angeles Times editorialized this morning calling out the truly moronic postings - from all points of view - regarding the Giffords shooting. Read it and weep again. Getting to the bottom also requires a mature society to engage in real and sober self-reflection about our culture of guns. I know, I know, this is the third rail of American politics, but finding the discussion uncomfortable or politically difficult doesn't make the self-reflection any less important. How can a culture that claims to value the sanctity of life tolerate the level of gun violence we seem to now find tolerable? Once again American politics intersects with guns and violence. Ours is a great country, but the tragedy in Tucson suggests once more many uncomfortable things about our less-than-perfect Union. We have some work to do to get to the bottom and try to learn from - and rise above - yet another horrific tragedy.

Now...the News

2011-01-06T05:00:00.001-07:00

Pew Survey: Internet Grows As News Source The new Pew Research Center report dealing with where Americans turn for their daily news fix shows, not surprisingly, that the Internet's impact is growing and newspapers are declining. Television is also in decline, while radio is essentially flat. Again, no big surprise, young people, in vast numbers, are surfing the net for news, while - as a former TV reporter I love this headline - TV news still dominates among what Pew calls "the less educated." People in the West are more likely than any other part of the country to turn to the Internet for news, but I'm guessing those numbers are skewed by "the left coast" effect of California, Oregon and Washington. Still the trends in where we seek out news are dramatic and show no signs of changing. Interesting to me, cable news and the traditional broadcast networks are both in steady decline as news sources, while local television news seems to be holding its own as a source of information. Older folks, again no big surprise, turn to television and much less to the Internet. What the survey doesn't answer is where on the Internet Americans are turning for information. Are they using the major newspaper and broadcast websites? Or are Internet news consumers turning to specialized sites that cover politics, business, energy or the environment? Or are they looking to sites like the Drudge Report and The Huffington Post, websites that aggregate news with a decided slant on what is featured and how the information is packaged? Or, as I suspect, based on the trend of increasing partisanship and a "point of view" approach on cable television, are Internet consumers seeking out information that already reinforces their political or social views? This much is beyond debate it seems to me: there is no longer any comprehensive place where Americans can turn for a shared sense of what is happening in American politics and culture. Walter Cronkite and David Brinkley once could gather us around the national hearth and we could share a national experience - men landing on the moon - or a national tragedy - the Kennedy assassination. No more. Pew also offers some regular analysis of what type of information Internet consumers seek. In the week between Christmas and the New Year - a pretty quiet news cycle - the top story was the seriously bad weather on the east coast. I've long subscribed to the "more is better" theory about news and information. More sources, more points of view and more delivery systems should make us smarter, more informed and better and more engaged citizens. I hope that instinct is true, but doubt it is. To make it true we must have not just consumers of news and information, but discerning, skeptical and critically thinking consumers. Other recent Pew research suggests that Americans have a 30,000 foot view of the issues and challenges facing the country. We know a few basic facts, but very few details. Americans aren't big on nuance. We know, for example, that the GOP made big gains in Congress, but not what those new members really intend to do, or even that the Republicans won control of the House. We know that BP ran the oil well that exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, but no idea about who serves as the British Prime Minister. We know the budget deficit is a big problem, but have no idea where all that money is being spent. And, John Boehner. Whose he? There is clearly a tremendous amount of information out there on the Internet, cable and broadcast television, even in shrinking newspapers, but the jury is out as to whether all that information, in an increasingly complicated and interconnected world, is making us any smarter or better able to understand and engage the world. That, in a modern democracy, seems to me to be a real problem.

That's Accountability

2011-01-05T08:00:00.001-07:00

If All Government Operated This Way Accountability, at least most of the time, is sure and swift in the United States military. Just ask Captain Owen Honors, who has been sacked as the C.O. of one of the U.S. Navy's most prestigious sea commands. By now most everyone has heard the story of how Honors, as the then-Executive Officer of the U.S.S. Enterprise, hosted racy videos with homophobic, sexual and other offensive content that were broadcast during "movie nights" on the big aircraft carrier. He subsequently became the Commanding Officer of the Enterprise, the videos came to light and his career is as ruined as it would have been if he had run his ship aground in San Francisco bay. The certainty of consequences for bad behavior or unethical conduct is one of the reasons that order, morale and effectiveness remain as high as they do in our all-volunteer military, while at the same time two wars and countless deployments have made military life incredibly difficult for thousands of young American men and women. As I read about the Captain's truly silly behavior - and, yes, I admit to finding the videos on YouTube and did take a look - I thought about the relative lack of accountability for bad behavior or performance on the civilian side of our government. It is a truly bipartisan problem. Take your pick: the Treasury Secretary's failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, various senators in both parties with ethical problems ranging from sweetheart home loans to sexual peccadilloes, heck even a former New York governor now has a prime time show on cable while the documentary about his frequent visits with prostitutes runs in theaters. Closer to home, a sitting Idaho state representative remains dogged by his tax problems and an Idaho tax commissioner operates under an ethical cloud. Some might argue that the standards applied to the Captain of the Enterprise are a little harsh give the frat boy nature of his offense. Still, the Navy's top brass demanded accountability - and swiftly - and not for the first time. When the Captain's boss "lost confidence" in him, he walked the plank - immediately. Admiral John Harvey, in announcing that the can was tied to the Enterprise's video host, talked about the Navy's determination to maintain its values of "honor, courage and commitment." Officers, Admiral Harvey said, simply must be held to the highest standards. The military code of conduct system demands it. End of story. In the wake of his own bad behavior, Eliot Spitzer got his own television show. Increasingly, it seems, the American political system allows that sort of "accountability." Little wonder then why the American public gives the military high approval ratings, while the public approval of Congress and other governmental institutions sinks to all-time lows. No accountability, no confidence.

Richard Ben Cramer

2010-12-31T08:00:00.004-07:00

The Best Political Book No One Bought Before Richard Ben Cramer, the campaign political book genre was dominated by the great Theodore White and his remarkable Making of the President series. That changed after the appearance of Cramer's monumental door stop of a book on the 1988 presidential campaign. Now every book about American politics is measured against Cramer's masterpiece - What it Takes: The Way to the White House. Cramer's book, a classic piece of "new journalism," not only provided the inside account of the campaigns of politicians like Richard Gephardt, Joe Biden, Gary Hart, Bob Dole and the eventual nominees, George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis, but also offered fascinating, in depth profiles of the candidates. It was a book about character as much as politics and it has become a classic for political junkies and Cramer and his approach have become a role models for a new generation of writers who see politics as less an insiders game and more a study in character and motivation. [One might argue that the 1988 campaign did a great deal to shape the current presidential campaign environment. Just remember some of the moments: Biden's plagiarism, the Willie Horton ad, Dukakis is a silly helmet in a tank, Bush 41's "read my lips" and Lloyd Bentsen's put down - "you're no Jack Kennedy" - delivered at Dan Quayle expense.] Politico has produced a must read profile of Cramer with insights into his book - the book was panned by reviewers when it came out years after the '88 election and never sold well - that is also a great look into what now passes for political reporting. Most big-time Washington reporters continue to focus their political coverage on the inner workings of the campaign. It's reporting analogous to covering a baseball game - report on the balls and strikes, throw in a little strategy, compose a clever opening graph and you're good to go. Cramer's book - he claims to have done more than 1,000 interviews - concentrated instead on why these remarkable men came to be where they found themselves in 1988. He was interested in who they were as people and what made them tick. This approach - the motivations of people, their background and the details of their lives - is vastly more enlightening to voters than most of what we get in more standard political reporting. I suspect that one of the reasons we don't get more of the kind of reporting Cramer does, in addition to the fact that it is darn hard work, is that candidates generally hate this kind of reporting. As Cramer told Booknotes interviewer Brian Lamb in 1992, most politicians aren't introspective. They never spend 15 minutes thinking about who they really are and what they really hope to accomplish. Cramer's book gets to these questions. The big book of the 2008 campaign was Game Change by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann, a book full of gossipy detail and the interesting, but not always insightful, "inside baseball" of politics. Cramer, never one to mince words, is dismissive of Game Change because, as he told Politico, it "almost religiously eschews any understanding of who [the candidates] are." Cramer became disillusioned with reporting on politics after the initial tepid response to What it Takes - he still owes his publisher $200,000 from the advance he received - and hasn't written about politics or candidates since. Instead, Cramer has produced books on baseball, including a book on Ted Williams and a devastating biography of Joe DiMaggio, and is now at work on a book on Alex Rodriquez. It's never too early to get ready for the next presidential election - candidates are already planning trips to New Hampshire and Iowa - so, if you haven't read What it Takes, haunt a used book store and lose yourself in one of the best political books ever written. What it Takes is a classic. And thanks for checking in here during 2010...a Happy New Year to you and yours.

A Good Movie

2010-12-30T09:00:00.003-07:00

The King's Speech In a year of generally lackluster output from Hollywood, there comes at the end of the year a truly exceptional film from - England. With inspired performances from Colin Firth as the second prince and future king, George VI, and Geoffrey Rush as his Australian-born speech therapist, The King's Speech provides a mostly historically accurate period piece look inside the British monarchy in the days leading up to World War II. The would-be king, called Bertie by his hard and cold family, has been a life-long stutterer. The thought of standing at a microphone and proclaiming is mostly unthinkable. Until, that is, having exhausted other avenues of professional help, he turns to a small-time actor turned speech therapist who helps unlock the mystery of the stutter. The movie really works on several levels. It is a look at England in the run up to the war. The bit roles for three British prime ministers - Stanley Baldwin, Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill - are just right. The film also, in a tight and believable way, provides insight into the still scandalous affair Bertie's older brother, the eventual King Edward VIII, had with the American divorcee Wallis Simpson. Edward, who abdicated in 1936 for the "woman he loved," is portrayed, as he was, as a selfish, boorish cad with apparent pro-fascist sympathies. Edward's shocking decision to give up the throne made the not terribly well prepared Bertie the king. The movie is also about the breakdown of class and social lines in the 1930's that allowed a outwardly rather stuffy and shy member of the royal family to engage a long-term friendship with one of his subjects, an outgoing and very worldly man. Maybe the best scene in the movie is when the King and Queen, played with perfection by the superb British actress Helena Bonham Carter, show up at the speech therapist's flat. Its funny, insightful, clever and played just right. Should you think nothing good is coming from the big screen these days, take heart - England rules with The King's Speech. Here's the trailer. Go see it.

On This Day

2010-12-29T09:00:00.000-07:00

FDR's Arsenal of Democracy Speech Seventy years ago this evening - December 29, 1940 - Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered one of the most important speeches of his presidency and helped set in motion a vast expansion of presidential power in the realm of foreign affairs. Fresh from re-election a month earlier to an unprecedented third term, Roosevelt used one of his tremendously effective "fireside chats" via radio to proclaim America "an arsenal of democracy" determined to aid a beleaguered Great Britain that seemed to be on its last legs against Hitler's powerful army and air force. Speaking from the Diplomatic Reception Room in the White House, Roosevelt said this would not be "a fireside chat on war," but rather "a talk on national security." He proceeded to lay out what he saw as the threats to the United States if the British, blockaded and bombed, were forced to capitulate to the Germans. While the speech was widely praised and well accepted, not everyone, to say the least, agreed. [You can hear the full speech, including the fascinating CBS announcer's introduction here.] The non-interventionist bloc in Congress remained very strong in 1940 and 1941. Roosevelt was concerned enough about the anti-war sentiment in the country that he made comments near the end of his 1940 campaign against Republican Wendell Willkie that he would have to eat. He famously said "our boys are not going to be sent into a foreign war." Montana's progressive Democratic Sen. Burton K. Wheeler condemned Roosevelt and his advisers as "warmongers" and Wheeler urged the president to utilize his position and leverage to seek a negotiated end to the fighting in Europe. (Idaho's William E. Borah, a Republican, who had died in January 1940, surely would have agreed with Wheeler and other leading non-interventionist like Ohio's Robert Taft and California's Hiram Johnson, both Republicans.) Roosevelt followed up his "arsenal of democracy" speech with legislation - forever known as Lend-Lease - that gave the president, in Wheeler's view and it was a credible view, vast new powers - even dictatorial powers - to aid those countries, debt free, that the president deemed vital to America's national security. By the end of the war in 1945, Lend-Lease had supplied $50 billion (more than $750 billion in today's dollars) in material to Britain, the Soviet Union, France and China. There is little debate that the aid was essential to the war effort. No less an authority than Josef Stalin confirmed that when he told FDR that American equipment had allowed the Allies to win the war. There is also little debate around the fact that Lend-Lease, and Roosevelt's administration of the program, finally and forever shed the American foreign policy cloak of non-intervention or isolationism. With Lend-Lease, the country was committed to full and unrelenting international engagement and the country has seldom looked back since the act was signed into law in March 1941. Fundamentally, what Montana's Wheeler and Idaho's Borah, among others, were objecting to was the inherent expansion of presidential power in the realm of foreign policy. Wheeler repeatedly warned of the rise of "an American dictator" who would run over the top of the Congress in the establishment of foreign policy. History has recorded that FDR, while not always candid or even completely honest about his intentions, used his vast foreign policy power with restraint and with a deep commitment to democracy. But those who opposed Roosevelt, even if now mostly forgotten, have also been validated by history. The steady expansion of presidential power in the area of foreign policy that, in many ways, began on a December evening 70 years ago continues to this very day. The United States has spawned no dictator as Sen. Wheeler feared, but we do have a commander in chief whose power to involve the country militarily in every corner of the globe is routinely unchecked and often not even really debated by the Congress. Franklin Roosevelt's legacy is well recognized for its sweeping impact on domestic policy, but the 32nd president's legacy in foreign policy is just has profound and it began with a speech on this day seven decades ago.

To Be Thankful

2010-12-27T10:30:00.000-07:00

A Grand Canyon Looking for something to be thankful for this holiday season? Lift a glass to the memory of the 26th President of the United States. He saved the Grand Canyon - saved it, I'm convinced, so that I could have the marvelous experience of standing at its rim on a cold, clear Christmas Day knowing that there are some things too perfect to let the heavy hand of man intrude. Theodore Roosevelt called the Grand Canyon "the most wonderful scenery in the world" and compared it to "ruined temples and palaces of bygone ages." It is a temple and thank God Roosevelt had the vision and grit to protect it from the zinc and copper miners who were - its hard to believe today - determined to exploit the Canyon in the early days of the 20th Century. On May 6, 1903, as part of his celebrated "loop tour" that took Teddy to Yellowstone, Yosemite and eventually the Grand Canyon, Roosevelt stood at the south rim and spoke words that still ring with universal truth and his vision. TR's trip, the longest and most ambitious ever taken to that point in presidential history, is recounted beautifully in Douglas Brinkley's fine book The Wilderness Warrior. Reflecting on the majesty of what the locals called "the big ditch," Roosevelt said simply, "You cannot improve upon it. The ages have been at work on it, and man can only mar it. Keep it for your children and your children's children and all who come after you as one of the great sights for Americans to see." When Congress failed to act on his request to protect the Canyon as a National Park, Roosevelt took his own action on January 11, 1908. Now, there's something to be thankful for.

Merry Christmas

2010-12-25T13:30:00.001-07:00

Ghosts of Christmas Past I was blessed as a kid growing up with a big and diverse extended family. I loved all my aunts and uncles and many cousins were great friends and playmates. I remember that one uncle, one of my mother's brothers, always seemed to have the latest gadget or the newest must have thing. When digital cameras were still a distant dream, my uncle had the 1960's version of instant photography gratification - the Polaroid Land Camera. Make a picture, wait 60 seconds and like magic you had a small, square color picture. This uncle had an American Motors Rambler, a mostly forgettable automobile that nonetheless was a bit of a novelty when it was introduced. And, apropos to Christmas, uncle had the first aluminum Christmas tree I ever remember seeing. The shimmery, silver tree came in a big box. You had to assemble it limb-by-limb and once fitted together you could switch on a rotating light with three colored gels that, when positioned just right, constantly changed the tree color from green to red to gold. My mother loved her brother, but was appalled by that tree. Only one type of tree ever graced my mother's living room - a real, "live" tree, dripping with tinsel, many, many uniformly sized colored ornaments and tiny little colored lights. Mom was fastidious about most everything. She ironed the dish towels, never, ever left a bed unmade and never went to sleep with a dirty dish in the kitchen sink. Christmas trees in her world were natural, green and, if not just perfect in size and shape, subject to certain engineering modifications. I can still see her cutting off an unneeded lower branch of a big tree and grafting it into a naked spot higher up that just didn't quite conform to her notion of what a proper tree looked like. She would use black sewing thread to hold the grafted branch in place. Not a chance that this woman would embrace the artificial tree movement. It's funny the things you remember from long ago. I certainly remember that cutting edge aluminum tree, but also can see mom standing on tip toes hanging long strands of tinsel, insisting that each piece be absolutely straight. I once offered to help, but was politely and firmly told there was only one way to decorate a Christmas tree and I was welcome to help, if I did it her way. I watched. While I did not inherit mom's fascination with Christmas tinsel, I did get her natural tree dominate gene. And like a visit from Marley's ghost, all these years later, I can see clearly the living room, mom's tree, my Christmas stocking and my brother's and the little Christmas figures she would haul out every year. Memories - those ghosts from years past - are the real joys of Christmas now. No coal for me and no fake tree. Just a lifetime of memories and mother decorating her tree. Merry Christmas and happy memories.

Net Neutrality

2010-12-23T06:00:00.002-07:00

Messing With a Good Thing I remember years ago interviewing then-Idaho Public Utilities Commissioner Perry Swisher, a smart, opinionated and cantankerous former state legislator and newspaper editor and reporter. Federal Judge Harold Greene had just issued his landmark decision - we are still living with the consequences - that "broke up" Ma Bell. I wanted to know the Commissioner's view. Swisher, an old school kind of guy, said of the 1984 break up of AT&T, and I think I can quote it correctly after all these years: "Judge Greene took the only perfect thing in the world and screwed it up." Swisher may or may not have been correct about the big break up of the phone company. After all, that decision arguably sparked decades of innovation in how we use telecommunications, but it also vastly complicated for the technically challenged among us the range of options, approaches, gadgets and applications. Still in all, the change was probably inevitable. The famous Judge Greene, for example, often observed, as the The Washington Post noted upon his death in 2000, "that the telephone industry grew up in the copper wire days when it was a natural monopoly, and that when microwaves made it possible to bypass the wooden pole network, the monopoly could not last." I couldn't help but think about former-PUC Commissioner Swisher and Judge Greene as I've read the avalanche of coverage around the Federal Communications Commission decisions on "net neutrality." I don't pretend to be an expert, or even a reasonably well-informed observer, of what role the FCC should play in managing access to the web. I do know, like Judge Greene in the early 1980's, that FCC commissioners can make decisions that fosters innovation, access and nearly unimaginable new applications, or they can "screw up" something that seems to be working pretty well as is. The FCC's decision seems to have something for everyone to dislike. National Journal and PC Magazine have good summaries of what the FCC rules mean. One thing it surely means is that the political, regulatory and economic debate about how to run the Internet is really about to get very heated and very interesting. My requirements are pretty basic, if the FCC is listening. I want equal access from my desk top or my wireless device and I don't mind paying reasonable fees for that access, but I don't want my Internet provider deciding I can't access some other providers content. Like the Judge Greene decision, as complicated as it once made the simple act of finding a long distance carrier, I want to unleash the marketplace, but I also want a tough cop, sort of like we need on Wall Street, making sure my access is secure. In other words, I want the best of the capitalist approach with just the appropriate delicate balance of regulation and oversight that protects the user and not just the provider. Doesn't seem like too much to ask.

Obama's Comeback

2010-12-21T06:00:00.006-07:00

Never So High, Nor So Low It was as predictable as a Christmas sale. Make way for the Obama Comeback stories. Immediately after the mid-term "shellacking" of Barack Obama and his party, New York Times White House correspondent Peter Baker breathlessly and instantly analyzed the election under the headline - "In Republican Victories, Tide Turns, Starkly." The President, Baker analyzed, "must find a way to recalibrate with nothing less than his presidency on the line." Wow. What a difference seven weeks makes. A lead story at the Politico website carries the headline: "Obama Rebounding." Reporter Jennifer Epstein expands a tiny uptick in Obama's poll standings - his approval/disapproval now stands evenly split at 48-48 in the latest CNN survey - into the insight that more Americans support the President's policies than any time since mid-2009. Say what? What happened to the guy who couldn't find his groove? What became of the fatally wounded re-election bid? In that November 3 Times piece, former House Republican leader Dick Armey, a voice of the Tea Party, flatly predicted that Obama has "already lost his re-election." What's going on here is that politics sometimes resembles another game - baseball. Every day is a new game and, while every team looks unbeatable through a winning streak and impossible in a slump, seldom are the players ever as good or bad as they appear. The ups get exaggerated and so do the downs. The other phenomenon in plain view is the absolute fascination of the national media with the "comeback narrative." The so called "media elite" from the Times to Time, from Fox News to Politico can't operate without a simple, concise narrative. Every storyline needs, well, a story and there is no better political story than "the comeback." Need more proof? USA Today supplies it with a headline: "Obama Sets Up As Comeback Kid." Seven weeks is a lifetime in politics, particularly in a political environment as volatile as ours; an environment influenced heavily, it must be noted, by relentless and often misleading coverage of the latest poll numbers. Here's a thought. Rather than sitting around the Beltway cracker barrel, how about some political reporters go out into the country and talk to voters? They just might learn something. A few things are obvious, even if they don't fit neatly into the political narrative of the moment. The President has had a good lame duck session, he did recalibrate his stand on extending the Bush tax cuts and, as yet, the country sees no serious challenger to him in 2012. Meanwhile, by some accounts, Obama is quietly remaking his White House staff for the run up to his re-election and positioning himself as a reasonable, mid-ground alternative to the current faces of the GOP - Mitch McConnell and John Boehner. Also obvious, Obama is a good politician who displays the ability to grow in office. By the same token, he is not as good at the political game as his 2008 election made him look, but he is also not as bad as the recent mid-terms made him look. For Obama, like all politicians, the highs are always lower than they seem and the lows are always higher. In truth, as Michael Cooper astutely pointed out in the Times in the wake of the mid-terms, a good deal of political "analysis" is not just spin, it is mythology. But, political time and myth will march on and the national media will soon need to invent new narratives. In a few weeks, Newt and Mitt, Sarah and Haley will be showing up in places like Manchester and Waterloo and we can read and contemplate the unfolding of the endless presidential campaign. It will, no doubt, be the most important election in our lifetimes. You heard it here first. All this reminds me - and reminded Michael Cooper after the mid-terms - of the late Polish philosopher and political thinker, Leszek Kolakowski. Once a hard-headed Stalinist, Kolakowski came to see the Communism of his youth as a fraud and he eventually became a leading intellectual of the Solidarity movement in his native land. He won a MacArthur genius award and his work was celebrated by, among others, the Library of Congress. Kolakowski promulgated what he called the "Law of Infinite Cornucopia," which holds that for any doctrine one chooses to embrace there is never a shortage of arguments to support that view. So, welcome to the remarkable Obama comeback or, if you prefer, wait for "proof" that it never happened.

Railing Against Rail

2010-12-20T06:00:00.002-07:00

The Politics of Trains I'm going to admit my obvious bias right up front: I love trains. I love travel by train. I collect visits to train stations. I am enamoured with the rails. I've ridden the overnight Red Star from St. Petersburg (Leningrad in those days) to Moscow. I've taken the train from London's Victorian-era Kings Cross Station to Edinburgh. I vividly remember a warm day in Italy and the leisurely train ride from Milan to Florence and on to Lucca. I once flew to Los Angels purely for the pleasure of riding what may be Amtrak's best train, the Coast Starlight, from LA to Seattle. I shared a cigar break on the platform in Eugene with the sleeping car attendant. In New York, I go to Grand Central Station just to watch the people and have a drink at the famous Oyster Bar. One of my earliest memories - I must have been about four years old - is of an overnight train trip with my brother and mom and dad. We had a double sleeper compartment and, while I would have liked the upper berth, my older brother got it. Still, when dad took my Buster Browns and sat them in the passage outside the compartment and informed me that the sleeping car porter would shine them and return before breakfast, I thought this is what the good life must look like. As a junior high schooler growing up in the old railroad town of Rock Springs, Wyoming, I loved to go downtown - the Union Pacific mainline actually divides the heart of Rock Springs - and watch trains, particularly passenger trains, whistle through. In the late 1960's American long distance train travel was in its last gasp, but the wonderful City of Portland still ran through Rock Springs and the romantic sounding Portland Rose made the daily run from Denver to the Rose City. Now intercity passenger trains in the United States are about as scarce as the American manufacturing sector. The once great network of trains that existed to carry the mail and people has essentially shrunk to a few routes between major cities. Amtrak limps along with regular threats to its budget and often second-class service. The rest of the world is leaving us in the dust. Spain has now become the world's leader in high speed rail. King Juan Carlos opened the new Madrid - Valencia line over the weekend. The 219-mile trip will take 90 minutes. China - big surprise - is investing billions in its intercity trains and has entered into agreements with GE to manufacture equipment. The Chinese have a plan in place to link, by high speed rail, China with Laos, Thailand and Singapore. In the USA, we can merely watch as the strategic Chinese leadership comes to dominate the world market for rail equipment and then uses that dominance to economically rule all of southeast Asia, in part, thanks to a modern, high speed rail system. The universally hated Obama stimulus package contained $8 billion for high speed rail construction, but newly elected Republican governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have refused the money that had been set aside for new routes in those states. Even as congressional Republicans, as well as some Democrats, are talking about reducing the commitment to rail, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has re-directed the Wisconsin and Ohio money to developing rail systems in Florida, California and a few other states. Conservative media voices are almost unanimous in opposition to this type of rail development and the safe betting is that even maintaining existing rail funding in the new Congress will set off a major fight. The administration has sold high speed rail development a a jobs initiative than as a long-term transportation investment. And, while it is difficult to argue with the jobs that rail construction will create - Wisconsin is already facing job losses from the Spanish company that had set up shop in Milwaukee to build equipment - the real issue here is a long-term transportation strategy for the country. Here's a question for American policymakers: why is the rest of the world investing in this technology, even at a time of severe fiscal constraint, while we can't arrive at any consensus about rail? I think the answer rests in a different way of thinking in Europe and Asia about transportation. For economic and environmental reasons, countries like Spain, France, China and India are de-emphasizing the automobile and seeking other strategies. While the rest of the world is getting on with the work of finding new ways to get along entirely, or almost entirely, without a car, the U.S. can't even come together on a strategy to streamline big city to big city transportation. This may present a pivotal moment, ironically not unlike the moment in the 1950's when Dwight Eisenhower committed the United States to a comprehensive interstate highway system. That decision, unfolding over years of planning and construction, transformed the country, uniting the nation with a modern surface transportation system. For good and bad - mostly good - we are living with that big highway legacy today. Secretary LaHood, a Republican and respected former Illinois Congressman, makes a compelling case that a new, national high speed rail network is this generation's legacy transportation and infrastructure project. But, given our lack of ability to create a national vision about almost anything, can we possibly seize the moment? Gov-elect Scott Walker in Wisconsin based some of his opposition to high speed rail on the on-going costs to the state of maintaining the system that was to connect Milwaukee with Madison and eventually Minneapolis. That is a legitimate long-term planning issue, but no different than the cost every state now incurs to maintain Ike's interstates. The point is that 60 some years ago, the country made a strategic, long-term investment in transportation and, of course, the interstate highway system was incredibly costly. The federal share alone, not to mention on-going maintenance was close to $120 billion, but that cost pales in comparison to the jobs created, the people moved and the commerce facilitated. What will we do for transportation in 2050? China and Spain may be sending us a clue if we are smart enough to listen. One of the great train stations in the world is the Gare de Lyon in Paris, the terminus of the French high speed trains that connect the heart of Paris with France's second largest city, Lyon, and the great port city of Marseille. A high speed rail trip on the sleek and comfortable TGV from Lyon to Paris takes about 2 hours, intercity to intercity the 250 miles is covered in comfort and safety. Trust me, arriving at the Gare de Lyon, home to the fabulous Le Train Bleu restaurant, and grabbing a cab at the station beats the heck out of battling the crowds and traffic at Charles de Gaulle airport in the outskirts of Paris. When I made the trip a few years ago, the Paris bound passengers were a mixture of day trippers, business people and tourists. There were as many laptops and cell phones as backpacks and cameras. It was a first-class trip at a fraction of the time and cost to fly or drive. I'm nostalgic about that first rail trip from Alliance, Nebraska to Omaha more than 50 years ago, but fond memories aside, I can't escape the thought that Americans would come to value quality intercity train service if our policymakers could get their heads around the idea that we really can go back to the future.

A Verdict of History

2010-12-14T10:00:00.001-07:00

Wisconsin's Curious Senate History At least three times in the last sixty-plus years Wisconsin voters have sent packing a respected national politician with a record of genuine accomplishment and replaced him with, well, to be generous, someone else.

La Follette - McCarthy

In 1946 Joe McCarthy, whose name is forever linked with a bleak period in American political history, beat Sen. Robert M. La Follette, Jr. in the Wisconsin Republican primary. Young Bob La Follette had replaced his father, Fighting Bob La Follette, in the Senate when the elder icon of the famous Wisconsin political family died in 1925. Robert La Follette, Sr. was selected in 1955 as one of the five greatest U.S. Senators. By all accounts Young Bob was a serious, studious legislator determined to carry on his father's progressive political legacy. La Follette was also supremely independent. He broke ranks with the old-line Republican Party in 1932 to support Franklin Roosevelt, supported much of FDR's New Deal legislation and was a champion of civil liberties when such things were not very popular. A measure of La Follette's respect in the Senate is contained in the intriguing fact that, although elected as a Republican, Democrats gave him the chairmanship of an important labor investigations committee in the 1930's. He also helped pass landmark federal government reorganization legislation near the end of his Senate career.

McCarthy's career, despite regular efforts to rehabilitate the reputation of the bully from Appleton, is well documented. He was shameless as a self promoter, trampled on the very idea of civil liberties and was ultimately censured by the Senate in 1954. His death at 49 in 1957 was directly related to his years of heavy drinking.

After service in the Truman Administration, young Bob La Follette's life also came to a tragic end. He committed suicide in 1953.

Nelson - Kasten

In 1980, Wisconsin voters turned out another remarkable Senator, Gaylord Nelson. First elected to the Senate in 1963, Nelson, a former Wisconsin Governor, became one of the foremost champions in the Congress of conservation legislation. Nelson supported trails legislation, sponsored or co-sponsored the Wilderness Act and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. It was Gaylord Nelson's idea to have the very first Earth Day in 1970. The event was important because, as Nelson later said, the country needed "a nationwide demonstration of concern for the environment so large that it would shake the political establishment out of its lethargy and, finally, force this issue permanently onto the national political agenda."

President Clinton presented Nelson the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1995, fifteen years after his defeat by Robert Kasten in the Reagan landslide of 1980.

Kasten went on to, charitably, a less-than-distinguished two terms in the Senate. Kasten now has his own consulting business. Defeated for re-election in 1992, Kasten was a part of the Class of 1980 that included Idaho's Steve Symms, Indiana's Dan Quayle, New York's Al D'Amato and South Dakota's James Abdnor. None of whom, history would say, made much of a lasting mark in the United States Senate.

Feingold - Johnson

It remains to be seen if the most recent Senate election in Wisconsin, where Sen. Russ Feingold lost re-election, continues the McCarthy - Kasten pattern of replacing an accomplished, national figure with a senator who doesn't quite measure up.

Feingold, say what you will about his generally liberal politics, was widely seen as a serious legislator with one of the most independent records in the Senate. Republican John McCain got downright emotional in talking about Feingold's Senate career. "I don't think he is replaceable," McCain said during a floor speech.

History will judge, but Feingold's principled opposition to the U.S.A. Patriot Act and the Iraq War, not to mention his bipartisan work with McCain on campaign finance reform, mark him as someone who made a difference during three terms in the Senate.

Sen-elect Ron Johnson - he beat Feingold by 105,000 votes in November - came out of no where to do so. Johnson is a plastic manufacturer, a favorite of the Tea Party movement and has never held public office.

It has been said that we get the government we deserve. One wonders, with the perfect hindsight of history, if the great state of Wisconsin, proud of its cheese and Packers, might not like to replay at least a couple of its 20th Century U.S. Senate elections?

The judgment passing of history can be rather harsh on whether we voters always make the best choices. Put a different way, looking back on Wisconsin's Senate history, another term for a Bob La Follette and a Gaylord Nelson might look pretty good right now.

Ron Santo

2010-12-13T17:00:00.001-07:00

A Great Cub and Good Guy I told myself, what with the winter blahs and all, that I was done with misty eyed reminiscences about old ballplayers, at least until spring. But then Ron Santo died. I've always thought of Ernie Banks as the eternal Cub and he is, but Santo - who should be in the Hall of Fame, by the way - is only a half step behind "Mr. Cub" in his lifetime of devotion to the boys on the North Side of Chicago. In the eternal terminology of baseball, Santo was a gamer. Not elegant, not polished, just gritty and determined; a grown man loving playing a kids game and amassing fine stats over a 14-year career. A life-time .277 average, 342 home runs, numerous All Star appearances and a half dozen Gold Gloves puts Santo in rare company, indeed. I loved the Ron Santo eulogy delivered by his long-time WGN radio broadcast partner Pat Hughes. Hughes took to calling Santo a "Cubs legend" and, as the Associated Press reported, the two broadcasters had a lot of fun together, including one hilarious moment when Santo's hair piece caught on fire at Shea Stadium. Hughes and Santo "were standing for the national anthem in the cramped booth when Hughes heard something 'sizzling like bacon.' He turned around, saw Santo's head on fire and quickly poured a cup of water on it. "'He said how does it look?' Hughes said. 'I lied and said, 'It doesn't look that bad.' It actually looked like a professional golfer had taken a pitching wedge and hit one off his head.'"

As good as he was as a ballplayer, Santo lived a long life battling diabetes. He originally didn't tell the Cubs of his disease fearing it would prevent him playing baseball. It didn't and considering the adversity he encountered, loosing both legs to the disease, Ron Santo turned out to be every bit as good and courageous a person as he was a ballplayer.

Everyone liked Ron Santo. Maybe that's why he was destined to be a Chicago Cub.

Senators Worth Remembering

2010-12-10T06:00:00.001-07:00

James P. Pope, Idaho The Fourth in a Series... Democrat James Pinckey Pope served only one term in the United State Senate from 1933 to 1939, but left his mark on both domestic and foreign policy. Pope was the first Boise Mayor to go directly to the United States Senate. Dirk Kempthorne repeated that political leap 60 years after Pope's election. Pope, a Louisiana native and University of Chicago law school grad, came to Boise in 1909, served in a variety of civic and political positions, including a term as mayor and work in the Idaho Attorney Generals office, before his election to the Senate in the Roosevelt landslide of 1932. Pope was a reliable New Dealer whose election to the Senate clearly benefited from Roosevelt's popularity as the Great Depression gripped the nation and Idaho. As Idaho historian Bob Sims has written, Pope's 1932 campaign "anticipated the New Deal, as he stressed 'the issue of the little man' and 'economic relief for the lower strata.'" Idaho's great Sen. William E. Borah was nearly as much of an issue in Pope's 1932 campaign as was the nation's distressed economy. Borah nominally supported his GOP colleague John Thomas, but did little to campaign for him, while Pope stressed that Borah's vote in the Senate had often been cancelled by the more conservative Thomas. Pope easily defeated Thomas and soon enough emerged from the huge political shadow cast by Borah, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. While Borah, like many of his Idaho constituents, was a committed non-interventionist in matters of foreign policy, Pope was an advocate for American involvement in the World Court and the League of Nations. Critics in Idaho, according to Sims, took to calling Pope the "ambassador to Europe from Idaho," especially after the junior senator made two European trips in 1934 and 1935. Ironically Pope's participation in the Senate investigation of the munitions industry - the so called Nye Committee of 1934 and 1935 - served to undercut his internationalist foreign policy views. The Nye Committee, named for progressive Republican and isolationist North Dakota Sen. Gerald P. Nye - held more than 90 hearings investigating the role big money and the big armaments industry played in U.S. involvement in World War I. The committee reflected much popular sentiment in the country in the early 1930's that the U.S. had blundered into the world war and that Wall Street - J.P. Morgan was hauled before the committee - had added and abetted American intervention by selling arms to all the belligerents. The munitions industry earned the label "merchants of death," which was also the title of a best selling book advancing the theory of Wall Street conniving to get the country into war. Nye earned lasting Democratic scorn for attacking Woodrow Wilson. Nye accused the former president of being less than honest about why the country had gone to war in 1917. The Nye committee, with Alger Hiss serving as counsel for a time and with prominent members like Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, gave momentum to those, like Borah, who favored neutrality legislation and a general withdrawal from European affairs. As a reliable vote for any manner of New Deal legislation, including FDR's controversial court packing scheme in 1937, Pope's political standing in Idaho, particularly compared to Borah, suffered near the end of his only term. The Idaho Democratic Party was also fractious, with Pope clearly at home in the liberal wing of the party. When a more conservative Democrat, popular eastern Idaho Congressman D. Worth Clark, challenged Pope for the Democratic nomination in 1938, Clark won. Clark's foreign policy views were much more in line with Borah than Pope had ever been. Still, even with defeat for re-election to the Senate, Pope's political career was far from over. In 1939, Roosevelt appointed Pope to be a director of the Tennessee Valley Authority, a position he held until 1951. After his TVA tenure, Pope lived in Tennessee, practicing law, and eventually relocated to Alexandria, Virginia where he died in 1963. James P. Pope of Idaho was another United States Senator worth remembering. Others in this series: Reed Smoot of Utah, Bronson Cutting of New Mexico and Edward Costigan of Colorado.

Tax Cut Politics

2010-12-09T05:06:00.009-07:00

Fiscal Constraint Can Wait Considering the strum und drang of many Democrats reacting to President Obama's "deal" with congressional Republicans to extend the Bush-era tax cuts, one would think that there was ever a serious chance that Congress would actually change tax policy while the economy remains in the ditch. Wasn't gonna happen, but if there is a missed fiscal responsibility moment here it may turn out to be the failure by Obama and Democrats to leverage the moment to force a long-term deal to get the nation's fiscal house in order. Time will tell whether it was a missed opportunity. Announcing the tax deal, Obama acknowledged the obvious - the economy would not react well to a tax hike on the upper 2% or so of taxpayers even if most everyone else would see little if any change in tax rates. Add to that economic reality the fact that Republicans have largely won the broad political message battle over taxes and its impossible not to conclude - Keith Olbermann aside - that the President had little choice but to give way on his campaign pledge to let the tax cuts expire for the wealthiest taxpayers. The stark fiscal reality remains however, even as the politics of the moment crowd totals up the winners and losers. The co-chairman of the President's Commission on getting the budget deficit under control, Democrat Erskine Bowles, nailed the missed opportunity. Had Democrats been thinking along with Obama, they might have seized this moment to press for the grand plan to deal with the terrible mess both parties have created over the last decade. Democrats have yet to conclude that the country is ready for a call for shared sacrifice, pain and realistic action to cut spending, enhance revenue, scale back entitlements and reduce defense spending. Fiscal constraint will have to wait apparently, while all of us what for adults in both parties to begin to deal with nation's real fiscal problems. Still, given the push back from some Democrats, Obama displayed both political courage and political pragmatism in getting his deal. He also, importantly, got an extension of unemployment benefits that will have the benefit of keeping real money in the hands of real people who will spend it. Over the longer term, with this deal Obama may have also taken a step toward reassuring some of the independents who seem to have abandoned him in droves. Here is the real political reality: if Obama and Democrats don't make serious progress in getting the economy moving by Labor Day 2011, and moving in a way that most people feel in their bones as well as their pocketbooks, he and many othe Democrats won't have to worry about being around in 2013 to deal with controlling the deficit.